Scheduled offences

2022 PCrLJ 526 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7 & 2(t)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-AAbducting or kidnapping for ransomAct of terrorismScheduled offenceScope

Anti-Terrorism Court has jurisdiction to try the heinous offences mentioned in Entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule in addition to the offences constituting terrorism

Accused can be punished in the first category of cases only for commission of those offences and not under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for committing terrorism

Held, that the cases of heinous offences specified in Entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are cases of those offences which do not per se constitute the offence of terrorism but such cases are to be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court because of their inclusion in the Third Schedule

While specifically mentioning offence of abduction or kidnaping for ransom, it has been stated that such offence under S. 365-A, P.P.C. is included in Entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule and simultaneously is one of the actions specified in S. 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it follows, therefore, that whether it is an ordinary case of abduction or kidnapping for ransom under S. 365-A, P.P.C. or kidnapping for ransom is committed with the design or purpose specified in clause (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which will be an act of terrorism attracting S. 7(e) of the Act, the jurisdiction to try the same will lie only with an Anti-Terrorism Court

In the former case, the accused is to be convicted and sentenced only for the offence under S. 365-A, P.P.C., whereas in the latter case he will be convicted both for the offence under S. 365-A, P.P.C. as well as for the offence under S. 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

2017 PCrLJ 1250 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497(1), third provisoOffences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S. 5(6)Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 109 & 34Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss. 3 & 4

Public servant committed or attempt to commit criminal misconduct, criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, abetment, common intention, and acquires, converts, possesses, uses or transfers property knowingly or having reason to believe that such property proceed to crime

Bail, grant of

Statutory delay

Scheduled offence

Special Court in Respect of Banks

Jurisdiction of

Special Court could allow bail to accused charged with a Scheduled Offence inter alia on the grounds of sickness, infirmity or delay in completion of the trial, in case of further inquiry and if there was no likelihood of tampering with the evidence by the accused or that continued detention of the accused would hamper his defence, even if there were reasonable grounds to believe, that accused was guilty of the offence

In the present case, accused was behind the bars for more than two years

Neither accused nor any other person, acting on behalf of accused, was in any way responsible for delay in conclusion of trial

Circumstances suggested that accused had made out a case for the grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay

Accused was allowed bail accordingly.

2013 PCrLJ 137 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 4 & Sched.Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 190Scheduled offencesCases involving public servantJurisdictionScope

Scheduled offences as provided by Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, were exclusively triable by the Special Judge and direct cognizance was to be initiated without application of S.190, Cr.P.C.

Where same offences were committed by a private person without assistance of a public servant, they could not be considered as Scheduled offences and could be tried by the court having jurisdiction to try the same.