2012 PLP 517 (SCMR)
NAZEER AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus NOORUDDIN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 517 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | NAZEER AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus NOORUDDIN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 517 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 517 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 517 (SCMR) (NAZEER AHMED and others — Petitioners Versus NOORUDDIN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Salahuddin Panhwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 22nd July, 2011.
- 2. It is contended by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners that the order of the learned High Court was improper and there was no material available on record, which could allow the learned Court to confer jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court for holding trial of the petitioners before it. According to the learned Advocate Supreme Court, admittedly there was enmity between the parties and there was no intention of the petitioners to create a sense of insecurity and or destabilize public at large in order to attract the ingredients of provision of Section 6 of the Ant-Terrorism Act.
- 3. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court and have perused the record. The learned High Court has examined the material at length and has rightly concluded that the act of the petitioners created sense of insecurity amongst the villagers and did destablize the public at large and, therefore, attracts the provisions of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The learned Advocate Supreme Court in support of his contentions has relied upon the Judgments reported in the case of Mohabat Ali v. The State reported in 2007 SCMR 142 and the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddiq, reported in PLD 2009 SC 11, which are distinguishable on facts. Neither the motive nor intent for commission of the offence is relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court. It is the act which is designed to create sense of insecurity and or to destabilize the public at large, which attract the provisions of section 6 of the AT Act, which in the case in hand was designed to create sense of insecurity amongst the co-villagers.
Headnotes / Summary
S.6
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, determination of
Accused (petitioners) had challenged the order passed by High Court, by which it directed the Investigating Officer to submit challan of accused before the Anti-Terrorism Court
High Court had examined the material at length and had rightly concluded that the act of the accused created sense of insecurity amongst the villagers and did destabilize the public at large and, therefore, attracted the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Neither motive nor intention for commission of the offence was relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court and it was the act which was designed to create sense of insecurity and/or to destabilize the public at large, which attracted the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Accused's act created sense of insecurity amongst the co-villagers
Order of High Court being well reasoned, Supreme Court dismissed accused's' petition and refused leave to appeal. Mohabat Ali v. The State 2007 SCMR 142 and Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddiq PLD 2009 SC 11 distinguished.
S. 6
Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, determination of
Neither motive nor intention for commission of the offence was relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court and it was the act which was designed to create sense of insecurity and/or to destabilize the public at large, which attracted the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Respondent No.1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.
Through this Criminal Petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 5-5-2011 passed by the learned High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.D-471 of 2010, by which it has allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application of the respondent No.1 and directed the Investigating Officer to submit challan of the petitioners before the Anti-Terrorism Court.
2. It is contended by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners that the order of the learned High Court was improper and there was no material available on record, which could allow the learned Court to confer jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court for holding trial of the petitioners before it. According to the learned Advocate Supreme Court, admittedly there was enmity between the parties and there was no intention of the petitioners to create a sense of insecurity and or destabilize public at large in order to attract the ingredients of provision of Section 6 of the Ant-Terrorism Act.
3. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court and have perused the record. The learned High Court has examined the material at length and has rightly concluded that the act of the petitioners created sense of insecurity amongst the villagers and did destablize the public at large and, therefore, attracts the provisions of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The learned Advocate Supreme Court in support of his contentions has relied upon the Judgments reported in the case of Mohabat Ali v. The State reported in 2007 SCMR 142 and the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddiq, reported in PLD 2009 SC 11, which are distinguishable on facts. Neither the motive nor intent for commission of the offence is relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court. It is the act which is designed to create sense of insecurity and or to destabilize the public at large, which attract the provisions of section 6 of the AT Act, which in the case in hand was designed to create sense of insecurity amongst the co-villagers. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error in the impugned order, which is well reasoned and accordingly this petition is dismissed. Leave refused. M.W.A./N-1/SC Leave refused.