2018 PLP 198 (YLRN)
SULTAN ALI — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 PLP 198 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Sahib Khan, C J and Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | SULTAN ALI — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 198 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 198 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Sahib Khan, C J and Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 198 (YLRN) (SULTAN ALI — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem for Appellant.
- Deputy Advocate General on Court notice.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 302(b) & 109
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7
Qatl-i-amd, abetment, act of terrorism
Trial Court convicted and sentenced co-accused and acquitted accused
Neither the State nor the complainant filed any appeal against the acquitted accused
Appeal filed by co-accused against his conviction and sentence, was dismissed by the Chief Court and Supreme Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court up to the extent of accused and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for decision afresh on its merits in accordance with law
Application filed by accused before the Trial Court for maintaining acquittal order earlier passed by the Trial Court having been turned down by the Trial Court, accused had filed present appeal
Matter which had finally been decided by the Supreme Appellate Court, could not be adjudicated
Appeal being misconceived, was dismissed, in circumstances. [Paras. 2, 3, 4 & 6 of the judgment] Deputy Advocate General on Court notice.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The appellant stood trial on the basis of FIR No. 163/2006 dated 24-04-2006 registered at Police Station City Gilgit, under section 302/109, P.P.C. read with sections 6/7 Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. One of the co-accused namely Naveed Hussain son of Fida Ali (since executed) and the appellant stood trial before the Judge Anti Terrorism Court No. 1 Gilgit. On conclusion of trial the learned trial Court convicted co-accused Naveed Hussain under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to death, while present appellant was acquitted vide judgment dated 31-08-2009.
3. The judgment of trial Court was assailed before this Court and murder reference under section 374, Cr.P.C. was also sent by trial Court for confirmation. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the State nor the complainant filed any appeal against the acquittal of the present appellant. The Cr. Appeal bearing No. 17/2009 filed by co-accused Naveed Hussain was dismissed and murder reference was answered positive by Divisional Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19-10-2010. The condemned prisoner Naveed Hussain filed Criminal Appeal No. 16/2016 in Cr. PLA No. 30/2016 before Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court which was disposed of on 01.03.2017, whereby the Hon'ble apex Court set aside the judgment of learned trial Court dated 11.12.2007 up to the extent of appellant and remanded back the case to the trial Court for its decision afresh on its own merit in accordance with law.
4. The appellant filed an application before the learned trial Court for maintaining the acquittal order passed by the learned trial Court in TC No. 15/2016 dated 31-08-2009. The application filed by the appellant was turned down by the trial Court vide judgment dated 26-04-2017.
5. The order of the learned trial Court has been challenged by filing the instant Criminal Appeal No. 20/2017 on the ground that the order of acquittal which was passed by the learned trial Court on 31-08-2009 and the judgment was maintained by this Court. The order/judgment of this Court has not been upset by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court and the same be maintained by setting aside the order of Anti Terrorism Court dated 26-04-2017.
6. We heard both the counsel at length and considered the submissions raised at bar. We are afraid that we cannot adjudicate the matter which has finally been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court. The appeal in hand is misconceived and the same is dismissed in limine. HBT/173/GB Appeal dismissed.