8/28/22, 7:46 PM 2020 M L D 817

2020 M L D 817
[Lahore]
Before Asjad Javaid Ghural and Farooq Haider, JJ
ABDUL HASEEB YOUSAF---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.344-J
of 2015, decided on 30th October, 2019.
Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997)---
----Ss. 11-N &
6(2)(p)---Fund raising for proscribed organization---Preaching ideas
as per
one's own interpretation---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of
doubt---
Scope---Accused was charged for cellecting funds for proscribed
organization---
Police recovered receipts of a Trust and motorcycle under his
use containing the
names of proscribed organization on the front and rear
number plate---Prosecution
did not produce any notification that the Trust was
a banned organization or
subsidiary body of the proscribed organization, as
such collection of funds,
specially on the receipts of said Trust, in no manner
constituted any offence---No
investigation was conducted from the angle that in
whose name the motorcycle was
registered and as such the same could not be
connected with the accused in any
manner, whatsoever---No case could be
registered under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
against any individual for mentioning
prohibited/objectionable words---Prosecution
had failed to bring on record any
piece of evidence, which connected the accused
with banned organization in any
capacity---Appeal was allowed and the accused
was acquitted of the charge.
Javed Iqbal for Appellant.
Muhammad Moeen Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General for the
State.
Date of hearing: 30th October, 2019.
JUDGMENT
ASJAD JAVAID GHURAL, J.---Through this criminal appeal under section 25
of
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 appellant Abdul Haseeb Yousaf has challenged the
vires of judgment dated 17.02.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism
Court-II, Gujranwala in case FIR No.404 dated 04.11.2013, in respect of
offences
under section 11-N of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 registered at
Police Station,
City Siray Alamgir District Gujrat whereby he was convicted and
sentenced as
under:--
Under Section 11(N) of the Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997
Rigorous
imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default
thereof he shall further undergo S.I for six months.
Under Section6(2)(p) of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2020L2535 1/4
8/28/22, 7:46 PM 2020 M L D 817

Rigorous
imprisonment for five years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default
thereof he shall further undergo S.I. for six months.
The
appellant was extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Both the
sentences
were directed to run consecutively.
2. The prosecution story unfolded in the crime
report (Ex.PB/1) is that Basharat
Ali, SI (PW-1) along with four police
officials conducted raid in the area of upper
Jehlum Canal in consequence of a
tip-off that a person belonging to a banned
organization Jaish-e-Muhammad was
collecting funds on different points from the
shopkeepers and passengers and
issuing receipts of A1-Rehmat Trust, which was a
subsidiary organization of
proscribed organization 'Jaish-e-Muhammad' and
apprehended a person whose name
was subsequently known as Abdul Haseeb
Yousaf (appellant) along with a shopper,
which contained four receipt books of Al-
Rehmat Trust, three mobile phones, six
SIM cards and an amount of Rs.2500/-. A
motorcycle bearing registration
No.4126/GAO contained the words "Jaish-e-
Muhammad" and "Al-Jehad"
at its front and rear number plate, which was also
taken into possession from
the appellant.
3. Basharat Ali, SI (PW-1) took necessary steps
of initial investigation and
moved the application for the constitution of
Joint Investigation Team. Fazal
Ahmad Sara, Inspector (PW-5) joined the
appellant with the investigation and got
prepared report under section 173,
Cr.P.C.
4. The prosecution produced six witnesses. The
appellant, in his statements
recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. had denied and
controverted all the allegations
leveled against him. He neither opted to make
statement under section 340(2),
Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in defence.
5. Learned trial Court, upon conclusion of the
trial, had convicted and sentenced
the appellant as stated above, hence this
criminal appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the
record.
7. The appellant was charged in this case on
two counts. Firstly, that he was
collecting funds for proscribed organization
"Jaish-e-Muhammad" and on
apprehending him at the spot, four receipts
of Al-Rehmat Trust, three cell phones
and six SIM cards along with the cash of
Rs.2500/- was recovered from the shopper
held by him. Secondly, the motorcycle
bearing registration No.4126/GAO under his
use contained the words
"Jaish-e-Muhammad" and "Al-Jehad" in the front and rear
number plate respectively. As far as the first allegation is concerned,
undoubtedly,
the prosecution did not produce any piece of evidence, either
documentary or oral,
to establish link of Al-Rehmat Trust with
Jaish-e-Muhammad. In this regard we
may refer the deposition of Basharat Ali,
S.I/complainant/Investigating Officer
(PW-1), made in cross-examination that
"I have not collected any notification
disclosing that Al-Rehmat Trust is
subsidiary body of Jaish-e-Muhammad. I have
not collected the cell phone data
of sims recovered from the possession of the
accused. I do not know in whose name recovered sims are registered." The
prosecution has not produced any
notification that Al-Rehmat Trust was a banned
organization or subsidiary body
of Jaish-e-Muhammad, as such collection of funds,

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2020L2535 2/4
8/28/22, 7:46 PM 2020 M L D 817

specifically on the receipts

of said Trust, in no manner constitutes any offence. The
prosecution has also
failed to make any nexus of the allegedly recovered SIM card
with the appellant
as neither the complainant/Investigating Officer bothered to
collect its call
data record nor verified that in whose name the same were
registered.
8. So far as the second part of allegation is
concerned, Basharat Ali,
S.I./complainant/Investigating Officer (PW-1), during
cross-exami-nation deposed
that "I have not checked registration of motor-cycle
P-1, as such, I do not know in
whose name, the same is registered. I do not
know whether motorcycle P-1 is
registered in the name of Abdul Haseeb accused
or not, however, I have recovered
the same from his possession." It is,
thus, evident that no investigation has been
conducted from the angle that in
whose name the motorcycle was registered and, as
such, the same cannot be
connected against the appellant in any manner
whatsoever. Even otherwise, if
the number plate was tampered by mentioned some
prohibited/objectionable words,
it falls under the domain of Motor Registration
Authority and on that basis no
case under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could be
registered against any
individual. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any
piece of evidence,
which connect the appellant with banned organization Jaish-e-
Muhammad in any
capacity. We are surprised to note that how the trial Court not
only took
cognizance of the matter but also awarded conviction against the
appellant
against whom the prosecution is standing with blank hands with no iota
of
evidence. We have entertained no manner of doubt in our mind that the
prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond
shadow of reasonable doubt and, thus, we do not concur with the conclusion
arrived
at by the trial Court qua the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
9. The epitome of above discussion is that the
appeal in hand is allowed, the
conviction and sentence of the appellant are set
aside and he is acquitted of the
charge by extending the benefit of doubt to
him. He is present on bail, his bail
bonds as well as the surety stands
discharged from the liability.
SA/A-93/L Appeal
allowed.

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2020L2535 3/4
8/28/22, 7:46 PM 2020 M L D 817

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2020L2535 4/4