1996 PLP R1972 (SCMR)
THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR ABID and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP R1972 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan, Actg. C.J. and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR ABID and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP R1972 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP R1972 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, Actg. C.J. and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP R1972 (SCMR) (THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR ABID and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 1st June, 1994
- Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao
- Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from `the judgment dated 9‑2‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.4394 of 1991) ‑‑‑‑S. 3‑‑‑Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885). S.25‑D‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.452‑‑‑Offences against accused (respondent) under S.452, Penal Code, 1860 and S.25‑D, Telegraph Act, 1885‑‑‑Challan submitted before Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) ‑‑‑Competence of Special Court to try such offences called in question by accused in Constitutional petition‑‑‑High Court maintained that trial of accused by Special Court was without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Offence under S.452 Penal Code and S.25‑D Telegraph Act, 1885 being not included in the Schedule which formed part of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, High Court was right in holding that trial of accused by Special Court was without jurisdiction‑‑ Petition for leave to appeal being misconceived, leave was refused. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.
Muhammad Tahir Abid, respondent No. 1, is being accused of offences under section 452, Pakistan Penal Code, and section 25-D, Telegraph Act, for trespassing into the house of a prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police and making obnoxious telephonic calls to a female servant of the latter. The local investigating agency submitted the challan in the Court of Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorists Activities) Faisalabad. respondent No.1 filed a Constitution petition in the High Court calling in question the competence of the Special Court to try him on the abovementioned charges. A learned Single Judge accepted the petition and held that the trial of respondent No.1 by the Special Court was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The State seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. The Special Courts have been create by section 3, Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. the extent of their jurisdiction is set out in the Schedule which forms part of the said Act. The offence under section 452 and section 25-D, ibid, are not included in the Schedule. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the trial of respondent No.1 by the Special Court was without jurisdiction. This petition is clearly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. A.A./S-915/S Leave refused.