2010 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 5 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 5 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 5 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A/34/109
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7, 13 & 21-D
Six applicants who were facftg charge of abduction for ransom, had sought quashing of proceedings pending. against them before the Anti-Terrorism Court, mainly on the ground that they had been falsely implicated due to their friendship with one of absconding accused, with whom alleged abductee/complainant had allegedly some civil dispute
Other ground pressed for quashing of the case was that the offence was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court
Anti-Terrorism Court, vide its order, refused to acquit applicants holding that offence was triable by it and neither the case could be transferred nor they could be acquitted on the basis of their defence plea without recording evidence
View taken by the Anti-Terrorism Court was unexceptionable
According to S.13 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Scheduled offences were triable by Anti-Terrorism Court
In presence of such clear and exclusionary provision of the Statute, there was no room for the argument that the offence of abduction for ransom was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court
Contention of the applicants that they had been falsely implicated due to their friendship with absconding accused, with whom the complainant had allegedly some civil dispute, also could not be accepted; and prosecution case could not be disbelieved without recording evidence
Trial Court had rightly held that defence plea of applicants regarding their false implication could not be accepted without recording evidence
Application was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
The six applicants, facing charge of abduction for ransom, seek quashment of proceedings pending against them before the Anti-Terrorism Court No.III, Karachi, mainly on the ground that they had been falsely implicated due to their friendship with one of the absconding accused, namely, Ghulam Abbas, with whom the alleged abductee, namely complainant Syed Abdul Rafay (respondent No.2) had allegedly some civil dispute. The other ground pressed for the quashment pressed for the quashment of the case is that the offence was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court.
2. The Anti-Terrorism Court vide its orders dated 25-4-2007 and 27-5-2008, refused to transfer the case and also refused to acquit the applicants, holding that the offence was triable by it and they could not be acquitted on the basis of their defence plea without recording evidence.
3. The view taken by the learned Anti-Terrorism Court is unexceptionable. According to section 13 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the scheduled offences are triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court and according to item 4(i) a it Third Schedule, "The Anti-Terrorism Court, to the exclusion of any other Court, shall try the offences relating to ... abduction or kidnapping for ransom". In presence of such clear and exclusionary provision of the statute, there is no room for the argument that the offence of abduction for ransom is not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court. 4` The contention of the applicants that they had been falsely implicated due to their friendship with absconding accused Ghulam Abbas with whom the complainant had allegedly some civil dispute, also cannot be accepted and the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved, without recording evidence. The trial Court has rightly held that the petitioner's defence plea regarding their false implication could not be accepted without recording evidence.
5. It was for these reasons that by a short order passed on 15-8-2008, the application, being meritless, was dismissed. H.B.T./M-165/K Application dismissed.