Protection against prosecution

2015 PCrLJ 433 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 & 324Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.132 & 200Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, act of terrorismAppreciation of evidencePrivate complaintDismissal ofProtection against prosecution

Private complaint filed by petitioner/complainant was dismissed by Special Court on the grounds that it was not supported by sanction as required by S.132, Cr.P.C. and that offence alleged against accused persons/respondents, did not fall under Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Validity

People whose relief cheques were not cashed had gathered in the mob to protest

Accused persons, who were Police Officials, for dispersing the mob of protestors opened fire, and two persons died and many others injured

Contention of accused persons was that incident took place under compelling circumstances because the mob was going to destroy public property in large scale; and fire was opened in good faith by them to abstain the mob from taking the law in hand

Validity

Version of accused persons that firing was opened under compelling situation, was not enough to overlook the murder of two persons

Justice demanded that truth should be found out so that no public servant dare to act going beyond his authority

Section 132, Cr.P.C. was a protection against prosecution; and to take benefit under said section, accused persons had to prove that the act complained of was done under circumstances mentioned in that section

Accused persons must place the material and show circumstances before the court justifying that mob was unlawful and the acts they did were purported to have been done while dispersing the mob

Complaint was dismissed on the ground that same did not fall within the scope of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Complainant failed to prove that act done by accused persons fell within ambit of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but when court concluded that S. 6 was not attracted to the matter and complaint was not triable by the Special Judge, then court was required to send the complaint to the court of ordinary jurisdiction, which could give finding regarding applicability or non-application of S. 132, Cr.P.C.

Revision was converted into appeal and was partially allowed by Chief Court

Impugned order of the Special Court was set aside, with the observation that S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was not attracted to the matter

Special Court was directed to transfer the complaint to Additional Sessions Judge concerned for its disposal in accordance with law, in circumstances.