1995 PLP 1095 (SCMR)
RIFFAT HAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE SPEICAL COURT FOR SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1095 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Saleem Akhtar and |
| Parties | RIFFAT HAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE SPEICAL COURT FOR SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1095 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1095 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Saleem Akhtar and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1095 (SCMR) (RIFFAT HAYAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE SPEICAL COURT FOR SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Petition No. 14 of 1994, decided 16th February, 1994. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 22‑1‑1994 in W.P. 805/1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in view of the special provision contained in S. 5 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, laying down the conditions for taking cognizance in a case by a Special Court, a private complaint could be entertained after a challan was already filed in respect of the case by the police before the Court mentioning the names of all the accused persons, though some of them were shown in column No. 2 of the Challan. Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1994. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑Leave is granted in the case to consider whether in view of the special provision contained in section 5 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, laying down the conditions for taking cognizance in a case by a Special Court, a private complaint could be entertained, after a challan was already filed in respect of the case by the police before the Court mentioning the names of all the accused persons, though some of them were shown in column No.2 of the challan. The interim order passed on 12‑2‑1994 will remain operative until decision of this petition. N.H.Q/R‑253/SC Leave granted.