Anti-Terrorism Court

2024 YLR 1256 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6 (1), (2)(o), 7, 12, 23 & Third Sched., Entry No.4Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 353, 147 & 148Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013) S.23(1)(a)

Terrorism, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting armed with deadly weapons and recovery of weapons

Anti-Terrorism Court

Jurisdiction

Police encounter

Element of creating fear and insecurity in society, absence of

Effect

Accused persons were alleged to have encountered a police party in armed conflict

Accused persons sought transfer of trial to Court of ordinary jurisdiction on the plea that no act of terrorism was made out

Validity

Although there was an act of armed resistance against members of law enforcement agency, as envisaged in S. 6(2)(o) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, yet factor specified in S. 6(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was absent

Matter did not fall within the fold of 'terrorism'

Mere recovery of firearms and ammunition coupled with assertion that the same were to be supplied onwards for the purpose of creating/ spreading terror did not suffice for that purpose, especially when intended recipient was not a proscribed person or proscribed organization

Alleged offence was even otherwise not one of those heinous offences which did not constitute offence of terrorism per se but were nonetheless to be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court due to having been specified in Entry No. 4 of Third Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

High Court set aside the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court and trial was transferred to ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction

Revision was allowed accordingly.

2022 YLRN 52 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23Anti-Terrorism CourtJurisdictionScopeMurders in a dwelling houseScope

Contentions of the petitioner were that as the incident was, admittedly, un-witnessed and no terror amongst the public was spreaded as per FIR and the cause of the offence was due to enmity, as such the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act were not attracted

Validity

Record revealed that the Trial Court had not only taken cognizance but some of the co-accused persons had been convicted and their appeals were pending

During the trial of said co-accused, question regarding jurisdiction was not taken while one of the convicts filed application (in that regard) but the same was not pressed

Murders , in the present case, took place in a house situated within a populous locality

After the incident, as per FIR, when the complainant approached the house of the victim family, he saw a good number of people of the locality at the place of incident

Such an offence inside a house , in which not only the head of the family but his wife and a daughter was brutally slaughtered and valuable articles were looted, surely caused a sense of insecurity amongst the neighbourhood

No plea of enmity was raised in the present case and complainant had only mentioned in FIR that the deceased were murdered by someone owing to enmity

If there was any enmity , the complainant must have disclosed the nature of enmity with the name of the accused

Good number of people from neighborhood having already gathered at the place of occurrence, therefore, it could not be said that it had not spreaded fear and sense of insecurity amongst the people of locality where it happened

Act of the accused surely had attracted the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

2018 PLD 836 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 31Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 203 & 265-KAnti-Terrorism CourtFinality of orders

Orders passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court which were not appealable listed.

2017 PLD 55 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 19(10), 19(14) & 7(e)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-AAnti-Terrorism CourtProcedure and powersScopeTrial in absentiaPermissibility and effect

Some of the co-accused, in the present case, having been declared as Proclaimed Offenders, had not been tried in absentia, as contemplated under S. 19(10) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Question before the High Court was as to whether non-compliance of the provisions of S. 19(10) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 against the absconding co-accused would vitiate the onward proceedings in the trial of the arrested accused

Trial in absentia, being violative of Arts. 9 & 10(1) of the Constitution, non-compliance of the provisions of S. 19(10) of the Act against the absconding co-accused by the Trial Court would not vitiate the trial of present accused

Anti-Terrorism Court, in terms of S. 19(14) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, exercising the powers of Court of Session, had proceeded against the absconding co-accused within the meaning of S.512, Cr.P.C and declared them as Proclaimed Offenders, followed by issuance of perpetual warrant of arrest.

2016 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 12Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.173Anti-Terrorism CourtDetermining jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism CourtTentative assessment of prosecution material

Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court for taking congnizance and conducting trial of offences was to be initially determined on a tentative assessment of the prosecution material that was presented before a Trial Court

At the pre-trial stage the relevant record for the consideration of the said question was the police report under S.173, Cr.P.C. and the investigation materials attached thereto.

2016 PCrLJ 879 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6, 7, 12, 23 & 25Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 376(2)RapeForum of trialAnti-Terrorism CourtJurisdiction

Two accused were convicted by Anti-Terrorism Court under S. 376(1), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for fourteen years and ten years respectively, while female accused was acquitted of the charge

Validity

Anti-Terrorism Court was vested with jurisdiction under S.12 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, only to try cases under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Word "shall" used in S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, left no discretion with Anti-Terrorism Court once it had formed opinion that the offence was not a scheduled offence

When Anti-Terrorism Court formed opinion that offences were not scheduled offences, then it was incumbent upon it to transfer the case for trial to Court of ordinary jurisdiction

Case could be transferred under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, after taking cognizance of offence by Anti-Terrorism Court

High Court set aside conviction and sentence passed by Anti-Terrorism Court and the case was transferred to court of ordinary jurisdiction for decision afresh

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2015 PCrLJ 456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 336-A & 336-B [as inserted by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act (XXV of 2011)]Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 12Constitutional petitionHurt caused by corrosive substanceAnti-Terrorism CourtJurisdiction

Grievance of petitioner was that Anti-Terrorism Court declined to transfer case for trial to Court of planery jurisdiction

Validity

Ingredients of offence under S. 336-A, P.P.C., punishable under S. 336-B, P.P.C. were fully attracted, which were exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court

Order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court was reasonable and proceeded on cogent grounds

Petitioner failed to point out any infirmity legal or factual in the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.