2003 PLP 750 (MLD)
ARSHAD ALI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 750 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Faiz Muhammad Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | ARSHAD ALI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 750 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 750 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Faiz Muhammad Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 750 (MLD) (ARSHAD ALI KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Ahmed for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑--‑‑S.381‑A‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Anti‑Terrorism Court‑‑‑Offence against accused was merely an attempt to steal a motor cycle and no act/incident of terrorism took place on the day of occurrence‑‑‑Anti‑Terrorism Court, in circumstances, had wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the matter‑‑‑Conviction of accused was set aside and case was remanded to Court having jurisdiction to try the case. Habib Ahmed, Asstt. A.‑G, Sindh for the State,
Judgment & Decree
Manzoor Ahmed for Appellant. Habib Ahmed, Asstt. A.‑G, Sindh for the State, Date of hearing: 3rd August, 2001. SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.‑‑‑Before going into merits of the case, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that, in fact, the learned trial Court viz. Anti‑Terrorism Court No.III had no jurisdiction to try the offence with which the appellant/accused was, charged inasmuch as such Offence which was merely an attempt to steal a motorcycle had no nexus with any act of terrorism. Consequently, in view of Mehram Ali's case learned counsel has prayed that the matter may be remanded back for trial afresh. Learned A.A.‑G. had also seconded this proposition since on the facts of the case no act of terrorism was involved. We have heard both the learned counsel as well as gone through the facts of the mater and the paper book. As per F.I.R. No.49 of 2001, dated 1‑3‑2001 lodged with Police Station Artillery Maidan, Karachi the appellant/accused has been charged with an offence under section 381‑A, P.P.C. According to the complainant on the date of incident at 12‑45 hours he had parked his motorcycle outside the PIA Booking Office where he had gone to purchase some ticket. At 13‑20 hours when complainant came out of office, he saw that a man, whose name was later on disclosed as Arshad Ali Khan, was trying to start his motorcycle. Thereafter, the complainant apprehended Arshad Ali Khan and raised a hue and cry whereupon HC Fateh Khan who was present on his duty at the scene of the incident took the accused into custody. Thereafter, the matter was challaned before the learned trial Court and his trial proceeded culminating in the conviction with the maximum sentence of seven years. The contents of the F.I.R. have been reiterated by the complainant during the examination‑in‑chief and also by the other prosecution witnesses. After having gone through the evidence on record as well as F.I.R., it is quite clear that no act/incident of terrorism took place on the day of occurrence since this was merely an attempt to steal of motorcycle. Consequently, we are satisfied that the learned trial Court E had wrongly assumed the jurisdiction in the matter. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant/accused is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Court having jurisdiction to try the case. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. H.B.T./A‑399/K Order accordingly.