1999 PLP 3236 (MLD)
ABDUL KARIM — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3236 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL KARIM — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3236 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3236 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3236 (MLD) (ABDUL KARIM — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 5, 6 & Sched
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.439
Terrorist act
Cases had been sent for trial to the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Last lines of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had to be read in conjunction with the earlier part of the said section and not disjunctively
Unless the act of accused was shown to have been covered by earlier part of the said S.6, the last lines of the same would not; ipso facto, bring the alleged act within the scope of "Terrorist Act"
Earlier part of S.6 admittedly was not attracted to the cases, nor these were the cases of preventing Armed Forces or Civil Armed Forces from performing their duties within the scope of S.5 of the Act
Offences in question, thus, were neither scheduled offences, nor offences under the said Act
Impugned orders assigning the cases to Special Court for trial were, consequently, set aside and the same were directed to be tried by the Sessions Court.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.
This Order will dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 128 of 1997, 12 and 13 of 1998, The cases relating to these revisions have been sent to the Special Court, constituted under the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997. The prominent trait of all these cases is that there was an alleged encounter between the accused of these cases and the police. The distinctive characteristic of these cases is that no police personnel was injured or killed, while one accused was killed and another sustained fire-arm injuries. Mr. Mubarrak Hussain Siddiqui, D.A.-G. and Mr. Habib Ahmed, A. A. G. have argued that, though the offences of these three cases are not scheduled offences yet in view of the provisions of sections 6, 7 and 38 of the said Act, these offences now are triable by the Special Court constituted under said Act. In order to appreciate the above contentions, it would be advantageous to reproduce sections 6, 7 and 38 of the Act, which are as follows: "(6) Terrorist Act.--Whoever, to strike terror in the people, or any section of the people, or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect harmony among different sections of the people does any act or thing by using bombs, homes, dynamite or other explosive or inflamable substances, or fire-arms, or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or chemicals or other substances of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to cause, or to be likely to cause the death of, or injury to, any person or persons, or damage to, or destruction of property or disruption of any supplies of services essential to the life of the community or displays fire-arms, or threatens with the use of force public servants in order to prevent them from discharging their lawful duties, commits a terrorist act. (7) Punishment for Terrorist Act.
Whoever commits a terrorists act shall,
(i) if such act has resulted in the death of any person be punished with ;death; and (ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but may extend to life imprisonment, and shall also be liable to fine. (38) Punishment for Terrorist Act committed before this Act..--Where a person has committed an offence before the commencement of this Act which if committed after the date on which this Act comes into force would constitute a terrorist act hereunder, he shall be tried under this act but shall be liable to punishment as authorised by law at the time the offence was committed. " Precisely stated the contention of learned Dy. A. G. and A. A. G. is that in abovequoted section 6 two types of acts have been categorised as 'terrorist act'. One is covered by the earlier part of the section and the second by its fast two lines. It is contended that if any person displays fire-arms or threatens with the use of force public servants in order to prevent them from discharging their lawful duties commits a terrorist act. We have examined the above contention and are of the view that last two lines of said section are to be read in conjunction with the earlier part of the section and not disjunctively. Unless it is shown that the act was covered by earlier part of said section, the last two lines would not, ipso facto, bring the alleged act within the scope of "Terrorist Act'. In these cases, admittedly the earlier part of this section is not attracted nor these are the cases of preventing the armed forces or civil armed forces from performing their duties within the scope of section 5 of the Act. The offences in question are neither scheduled offences nor offences under the Act. Accordingly, we allow these Revisions, set aside the impugned orders, and direct that these cases would be tried by the Sessions Court having jurisdiction in the matters. N.H.Q./A-293/K Revisions allowed.