2005 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus HAIDER ALI alias HAIDRI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M.A. Shahid Siddiqui and Nasim Sabir Ch., JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus HAIDER ALI alias HAIDRI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 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 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M.A. Shahid Siddiqui and Nasim Sabir Ch., JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus HAIDER ALI alias HAIDRI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmed Choudhary for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 417‑‑‑Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.4‑‑‑Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.25‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Accused were tried by Anti‑Terrorism Court under S.4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 on complaint/statement of appellant, but accused were acquitted of charge against them and appellant/complainant filed appeal against acquittal order‑‑‑Accused having been tried under Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997, judgment of Anti‑Terrorism Court in case of conviction could be challenged in appeal by accused under subsection (3) of S.25 of Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 within seven days of passing of sentence and in case of acquittal, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Standing Counsel, Public Prosecutor or Special Prosecutor, etc. were competent to file appeal under subsection (4) of S.25 of Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997‑‑ Appellant/complainant was not competent to file appeal against acquittal order in his private capacity‑‑‑Appeal filed by appellant/complainant being incompetent, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Cr. A. No. 14‑ATA of.2003, decided on 1st December, 2003. ‑‑‑‑S. 417‑‑‑Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.4‑‑‑Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.25‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Accused were tried by Anti‑Terrorism Court under S.4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 on complaint/statement of appellant, but accused were acquitted of charge against them and appellant/complainant filed appeal against acquittal order‑‑‑Accused having been tried under Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997, judgment of Anti‑Terrorism Court in case of conviction could be challenged in appeal by accused under subsection (3) of S.25 of Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 within seven days of passing of sentence and in case of acquittal, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Standing Counsel, Public Prosecutor or Special Prosecutor, etc. were competent to file appeal under subsection (4) of S.25 of Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997‑‑ Appellant/complainant was not competent to file appeal against acquittal order in his private capacity‑‑‑Appeal filed by appellant/complainant being incompetent, was dismissed. Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmed Choudhary for Appellant. Ghulam Hussain appellant has directed this appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 5‑6‑2003 passed by the Judge Anti‑Terrorism Court No.2 Multan whereby he acquitted Haider Ali alias Haideri and Abdul Khaliq alias Khalidi accused‑respondents in case F.I.R. No.354 of 2002 Police Station Saddar Arif Wala District Pakpattan under section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 on the statement of Ghulam Hussain appellant recorded by Muhammad Rafique Inspector S.H.O. P.S. Saddar Arif Wala.
2. The respondents were tried under the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997 the judgment of Anti‑Terrorism Court in case of conviction may be challenged in appeal by the convict under subsection (3) of section 25 within seven days of the passing of the sentence and in case of acquittal it is the Attorney‑General, Deputy Attorney‑General, Standing Counsel or an Advocate‑General or an Advocate of the High Court or the Supreme Court of Pakistan appointed as Public Prosecutor or Special Prosecutor is competent to file an appeal under subsection (4) of section 25 of the said Act. Ghulam Hussain complainant is not competent to file this appeal in his private capacity as such this appeal is held to be incompetent. Accordingly it is dismissed. H.B.T./G‑93/L Appeal dismissed.