Jurisdiction of Special Court

2024 PCrLJ 1610 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Sched. I, Entries Nos. 3 & 4Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376(2), 506-B & 34Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7Rape, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorismJurisdiction of Special CourtScopeAccused were charged for committing rape with a minor girl

In the present case, admitted position was that the alleged offence was not committed for ransom, hence, the same did not fall within the Scheduled Offences of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ("Act, 1997") and thus, the same was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court

Alleged offence of rape under S. 376(2), P.P.C, though was of serious and brutal nature, yet being not included in entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act, 1997, was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court as a heinous offence

Alleged offence under S.376(2), P.P.C., did not even fall within the jurisdiction of regular Court under the Code in view of promulgation of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 ("Act of 2021"), which came into force on 03.12.2021 to ensure expeditious redressal of rape and sexual abuse crimes in respect of women and children through special investigation teams and Special Courts providing for efficacious procedures, speedy trial, evidence and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto

Under Entries Nos.3 & 4 of the Schedule-I of the Act, 2021, offences under Ss. 21 and 22 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016; the offences under the Act of 1997, which are committed along with the offences in the said Schedule and under Entry No.1 of the Schedule-II of the Act, an offence under S.376, P.P.C., were Scheduled Offences of the Act of 2021 and were triable by the Special Court established under the said Act

As per FIR, the alleged offence was committed on 12.01.2021

Charge was framed by the Trial Court on 04.06.2021

Special Courts under the Act of 2021 were notified in the Province of Sindh on 11.10.2022

Impugned judgment was passed on 19.01.2023

Meaning thereby, that on the day of notification of Special Courts under the Act of 2021, the trial of Scheduled Offence of the Act of 2021 was pending in the Anti-Terrorism Court, which ought to have been transferred to the Special Court having jurisdiction under the Act of 2021, which had the territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offence as per notification

Since the trial Court i.e. Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the case; the accused could not be tried, convicted and sentenced by it

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded under the impugned judgment was set-aside with direction to Trial Court to transfer the case to Special Court established and notified under the Act of 2021, having territorial jurisdiction for trial in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed in the said terms.

2020 YLR 321 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471Prevention of Corruption Act, (II of 1947), S. 5(2)Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925), S. 65-B

Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery of valuable security to make or transfer any valuable security or to receive any money, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, public servant committed or attempt to commit criminal misconduct

Public servant

Jurisdiction of special court

Accused were alleged for misappropriating public money to the tune of Rs. 48,72,685/- from 74 accounts and shortage of Rs. 16,37,544/- in the cash-in-hand

Accused-respondents raised objections about the jurisdiction of the special court

Scope

Every officer of a society, including a co-operative bank, would be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of S. 21, P.P.C.

Present matter was exclusively triable by the Special Court, Anti-Corruption

Objections raised by the accused regarding jurisdiction of the court were repelled.

2020 PCrLJ 1228 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6(1)(b)(c), 7 & 23Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 427Act of terrorismJurisdiction of special courtTransfer of case

Complainant lodged FIR against accused persons for causing qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd and causing loss to property

Accused persons were aggrieved of order passed by Anti-terrorism court whereby their application for transfer of case to court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed

Validity

Motive for alleged offences was nothing but personal enmity and private vendetta

Motivation on part of accused persons was not to overawe or intimidate government, etc., or to destabilize society at large or to advance any sectarian cause, etc.

Intention of accused persons had not depicted or manifested any 'design' or 'purpose' as contemplated by S. 6(1)(b) or (c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Actus reus attributed was not accompanied by necessary mens rea so as to brand actions as "terrorism" triable exclusively by a special court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

High Court set aside order passed by Anti-terrorism Court as same was without lawful authority and of no legal effect

High Court accepted application filed by accused persons under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and declared their case to be triable by court of ordinary jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2016 CLD 2007 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

JurisdictionLaw may establish special Court to deal with special matters and give jurisdiction to decide such matters

Such a special jurisdiction may be carved out from the general jurisdiction of the Courts.

2015 PCrLJ 628 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6, 7 & 8"Terrorist act", determination ofJurisdiction of Special Court

For determination as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in the F.I.R., piece of evidence and surrounding circumstances; it was also essential to examine, whether alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 & 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Whether act of accused was an "act of terrorism" or not, the motivation, object, design and purpose behind the said act, was to be examined; it was also to be seen as to whether said act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public, or in a section of public, or community or in any sect

Where action would result in striking terror on creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in the particular area, it would amount to "terror"; and such an action squarely fell within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and would be triable by a Special Court constituted for such purpose

Courts had only to see whether the "terrorist act" was such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of the society.

2014 PCrLJ 561 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 5, 9, 11, 13, 16, 45 & 46Possessing and trafficking narcoticsAward of punishmentJurisdiction of Special CourtControl of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which was a special law, had provided for stringent and long punishment

Sentences specified in the Act, would depend upon quantity of recovered narcotic substances, and not the narcotic content of the recovered substance

Special care to be taken in narcotic cases by putting the prosecution to the strict test to prove its case

No room for doubt as to the exact quantity of the substance recovered

Accused being on the receiving end of long and strictest punishments, safeguards from his point of view should not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of mere comfort and convenience of the prosecution.

2013 YLR 548 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 420Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Ss.2(d), 3 & 4Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of propertyScheduled offenceJurisdiction of Special CourtScopeJurisdiction of the special Court did not depend upon the employment of accused with the bankAccused was not bank employee and none of the concerned bank employees had been charged

Jurisdiction of Special Court was vested by virtue of Ss.3 & 4 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

Special Court would have jurisdiction with respect to the scheduled offences

Definition of the "scheduled offences", entailed that the offences should be included in the schedule appended to the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 and offences should involve business of the banks.