Preamble

Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.
com/Login/Check
Caselaw Search
Statutes Search
Courtwise Search
Citation Search
Advance Search
Search in Staute -- Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-PREAMBLE
Enter Keyword Enter Court All Search
Back
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-PREAMBLE
Your Search returned total 46 records from 0 - 46
Citation Name: 2018 PLD 178 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Punjab Public Prosecution Department VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
S. 6 & Preamble---Cases attracting the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Pre-requisites---Creating terror or

sense of insecurity in the general public---Courts while deciding the question of attraction of the provisions of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had to see the manners in which the incident had taken place including the time and place
and should also take note of whether the act created terror or insecurity in the general public---Where the action of
the accused resulted in striking terror or creating fear, panic and sense of insecurity among the people in a particular
vicinity, it amounted to terror within the ambit of S.6 of the Act---Courts were required to see whether the terrorist act
was such that it would have the tendency to create the sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the general public
as well as psychological impact created in the mind of the society---Courts could form their opinion after going
through the facts, circumstances and material so collected by the police in the case.
Head Notes Case Description
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Punjab Public Prosecution Department VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
PLD 1998 SC 1445,
1 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check
S. 6 & Preamble---Cases not attracting the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Scope---Personal vendetta or
enmity---Preamble of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 clearly indicated that the said Act was promulgated for the
prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offences---In cases of the terrorism, the
mens rea should be an object to accomplish the act of terrorism and carrying out terrorist activities to overawe the
state, the state institutions, the public at large, destruction of public and private properties, assaulting the law
enforcing agency and even at the public at large in sectarian matters---Ultimate object and purpose of the offending
act must be to terrorize the society but in ordinary crimes committed due to personal vendetta or enmity, such
elements were always missing, so the crime committed only due to personal revenge could not be dragged into the
fold of terrorism and terrorist activities.
Citation Name: 2017 YLR 461 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case
KHAN JAVED KHAN VS State
Preamble---Object of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was enacted for the prevention of
terrorism, sectarian violence and speedy trials of heinous offences.
Citation Name: 2017 MLD 586 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case
SHAFIQ VS State
Preamble & S.6---Object and purpose of the Act---Object to promulgate Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was to control the
terrorism, sectarian violence and other heinous offences defined in S. 6 of the Act---Speedy trial of such offences
was the object of the Anti-Terrorism Court.
FARID ULLAH VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--387 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--506 , Rule of consistency--Term , Telegraph Act 1885--25 ,
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.387 & 506---Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S.25---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Preamble---Demand of ransom money by accused---Bail, grant of---Rule of consistency---Role of accused
was at par with the co-accused released on bail by the Supreme Court---Accused was admitted to bail on furnishing
the bail bonds accordingly.
Citation Name: 2017 YLRN 442 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
BUKHSHAL VS SPECIAL JUDGE (ANTI TERRORISM), HYDERABAD
2 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Object of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Object of promulgation of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 was to control acts of
terrorism, sectarian violence, other heinous offences and curb the terrorist activities as contemplated in S. 6 of the
Act.
Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 53 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
JAWAHIR KHAN VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE ,
Object of promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Object of promulgation of the Act was to suppress mischief and
to punish mischief mongers who destroy the peace and tranquility of the public at large, society or a section of
people or community.
Citation Name: 2015 YLR 2409 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
GHULAM AKBAR VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--PREAMBLE ,
Preamble, Ss. 23, 6 & 7---Object of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---"Terrorism", meaning and scope---Definition of
"terrorism", as incorporated in S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, reflected that meaning of "terrorism" included use or
threat of action that fell within the meaning of subsection (2) of said section and included use or threat, if designed
to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public, or a section of public or community or sect; or
create a sense of fear or insecurity in the public-atlarge; or use of threat for the purpose of advancing a religious
sectarian or ethical use or intimidation and terrorism against the public, social sectors, business community etc. and
attacking civilian, Government Officials, installations, security forces or law enforcing agencies--- While applying a
particular law, court must take into consideration the object for which the law had been enacted---Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997, as per its Preamble, was enacted "to provide for the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violation and for
speedy trial of heinous offences and for matters connected therewith, and incidental thereto"---Interpretation of
criminal law required that, the same should be interpreted in the way it defined the object and not to construe in a
manner, what could defeat the ends of justice, or the object of law itself---For determining the issue as to whether
the offence, was triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or not, nature of offence, had to be seen in the light of
the averment that how the same had been omitted along with the particular place of incident and further that by that
act, a sense of fear and insecurity in the society, had been created in the minds of the people at large or not---
Striking of terror, was sine qua non for the application of the provisions, as contained in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997.
Citation Name: 2014 PLD 644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS State
2007 SCMR 142, 2013 PCr.LJ 1880, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2006 Lah. 64, PLD 2009 SC 11,
3 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--1 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--34 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 ,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--Third Sche ,
Constitutional petition--TERM ,
Preamble, Third Sched., Ss.1, 6, 7, 23 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of

case from Anti-Terrorism Court to regular court---Scope of S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism
Court dismissed applications of accused involved in different offences namely murder by firing, acid throwing and
injury caused by firing in mosque, for transfer of their cases to regular courts---Validity---Purpose of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 was to prevent terrorism, sectarian violence and conducting speedy trial of heinous offences---In order to
decide whether an offence was triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or not, the courts had to see whether the
act had tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the mind of people or a section of society---Such act
might not necessarily have taken place within the view of general public---Schedule annexed to a statute was as
important as the statute itself---Schedule could be used to construe the provisions of the body of the Act---Third
Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had to be given its due importance and, first three paragraphs of the same
were general in nature while the fourth paragraph specifically described offences---In order to bring an offence
within ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, nexus of such offence with
S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was a pre-requisite---Paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 categorically mentioned the offences which would be tried only by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Offences in
question were within the purview/ambit of the paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and
were triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Petitions were dismissed.
Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 374 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Bookmark this Case
NADEEM VS State
Preamble---Law did not make any distinction in the matter of appreciation of evidence in a case under Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 or under normal criminal law---Credibility of witnesses had to be measured with the same yardstick,
whether it was an ordinary crime or a crime striking terror in society---Law did not make any distinction either in
leading of evidence in its assessment---Rule was one and the same, that was intrinsic worth of testimony and the
fact, that it stood the test of cross-examination---Contradictory versions of the prosecution witnesses made before
Anti-Terrorism Court and then before court of ordinary jurisdiction, would shake the entire foundation of the
prosecution case---By no stretch of imagination, it was possible to reconcile the conflicting statements of the same
prosecution witnesses regarding the same event---Said contradiction would sufficiently furnish a clue to veracity of
the testimony of those witnesses, and shake their trustworthiness.
State VS KHAISTA RAHMAN
Preamble---Object---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was a special law purpose of which was to control terrorism---
Schedule offences were made non-compoundable.
4 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Citation Name: 2012 PLD 122 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD RASOOL VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--32 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--14 ,
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--PREAMBLE ,
Preamble & S.32---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Preamble & S.14---Distinguishing features of
the two enactments---Under. Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, courts acquire jurisdiction if the offence is triable by them,
whereas under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, courts acquire jurisdiction if offenders are juvenile,
irrespective of the nature of offence committed by them--Provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, under its S.32 have
the overriding effect over all other laws including the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, whereas under S.14
of said Ordinance its provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in
force.
MUHAMMAD RASOOL VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE ,
S. 12 & Preamble---Jurisdiction, determination of---Essentials---While determining jurisdiction it would be necessary

to examine that the ingredients of the alleged occurrence have nexus with the object of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
for determining whether a particular act is an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or purpose behind
the same has to be seen---In case of any doubt with regard to the meaning of any particular provision, the Preamble
of the Act may be considered to arrive at the proper conclusion---Preamble of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, clearly
manifests that the same has been promulgated to control the acts of terrorism, sectarian violence and other heinous
offences as defined in S.6 of the said Act.
GUL MUHAMMAD VS State
PLD 2001 SC 96,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-e-amd--
Term ,
5 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Preamble & S.6(2)(g)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)---Qatl-e-Amd---"Terrorism"---Allegation of "Siyahkari"---

Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Any offence, where the offender would take the law in his own hands and
awards punishment, that offence would fall within the purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Venue of the commission
of a crime, the time of occurrence, the motive and the fact that whether or not said crime had been witnessed by
public at large, were not the only determining factors for deciding the issue, whether a case did or did not fall within
the parameters of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Crucial question would be whether said crime had or had not the effect
of striking terror or creating a sense of fear and insecurity in the people or any section of the people---Accused, in
the present case, had committed the murder of three innocent people on the false allegation of 'Siyahkari', while
taking the law in his own hands, such act certainly would have created a sense of fear, panic and terror amongst the
villagers---No licence could be granted to anyone to take the law of the land in his own hands and start executing
the culprits himself, instead of taking them to the court of law---Murder based on "Ghairat" did not furnish a valid
mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser sentence---Killing of innocent people, specially the women on to
pretext of 'Siyahkari' was un-Islamic, illegal and unconstitutional---Under S.6(2)(g) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in
case of unjustified murder by a person, who on account of his immorality or to satisfy his brutal instinct, would take
the law in his own hands, was responsible for creating sensation and panic in the society---Offences committed on
the pretext of 'Siyahkari' would fall within the domain of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and all the cases pending before
the ordinary courts would stand transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Courts.
GUL MUHAMMAD VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--345 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--311 , Qatl-e-amd--Term ,
Ss. 302(b) & 311---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Preamble & Ss.6(2)(g), 7(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), S.345---Qatl-e-amd---Tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-e-amd---Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 was enacted for prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and speedy trial of heinous offences-Said Act
being a special law, private complainant or the legal heirs of the deceased, had no right to compound the
"scheduled offence" as those offences were mainly against the State and not against individuals---Offences could
not be compounded automatically by legal heirs, but were always through the court; and the court could decline the
permission to compromise the offence by the legal heirs of victim---Even the ordinary courts under S.311, P.P.C.,
could punish accused, if the offence had been compounded, by the legal heirs, on the basis of "Fasad-Fil-Arz"---Not
providing the right to compromise the offence by the legal heirs of deceased, was neither violation of Islamic
Injunctions; nor of any fundamental rights.
Citation Name: 2011 YLR 1319 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
Syeda ZAHIDA RIZVI VS THE STATE through D.S.P.
1983 PCr.LJ 1097, 1993 PCr.LJ 767, 2000 YLR 2595, 2002 MLD 459, 2005 PCr.LJ 623, PLD 2007 SC 571,
1997--21-M , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--182 ,
6 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Preamble, Ss.2(t), 13, 17 & 21-M---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.182---Giving false information with intent to cause
public servant to use his lawful power to cause injury to another person---Purpose of enactment of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1990---Powers of Anti-Terrorism Court to try a person accused of offence under S.182, P.P. C. ---Scope---Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1990 which provided for the establishment of Anti-Terrorism Court as evident from its preamble, was
enacted for the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violation and speedy trial of heinous offence and for matters
connected therewith and incidental thereto---Purpose of establishment of Anti-Terrorism Court as envisaged in S.13
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was to provide a court for speedy trial of scheduled offences---"Scheduled offence" as
defined by S.2(t) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was an offence as set out in the Third Schedule of the Ordinance---
Anti-Terrorism Court, while trying an accused of a scheduled offence could also try such person for an offence which
did not find mention in the scheduled of offences by trying it as a matter connected and incidental to a schedule
offence as envisaged under S.21-M of the Act---Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try an accused for an
offence which did not find mention in the schedule of offences---Offence under S.182, P.P. C., did not find mention in
the scheduled offences to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, his trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court appeared to be without
jurisdiction.
Citation Name: 2011 PLD 1 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Bookmark this Case
Mian ABDUR RAZZAQ AAMIR VS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--203-DD , Control of Narcotic Substances Act
1997--PREAMBLE , Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979--PREAMBLE , Offence of Zina
(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--PREAMBLE , Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance 1979--PREAMBLE , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--PREAMBLE , Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order
1979--PREAMBLE ,
Preamble---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Preamble---Offence of Qazf

(Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979), Preamble---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979),
Preamble---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Preamble---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
Preamble---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.203-DD---Revisional and other
jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court---Scope---Final or interim orders passed or judgments delivered by trial courts
exercising jurisdiction on criminal side with regard to offences covered by the term "Hudood", whether mentioned in
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979; Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979; Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979; Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd)
Order, 1979; Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; Anti Terrorism Act, 1997; Penal Code, 1860 or any other law
for the time being in force, can be challenged by way of appeal or otherwise only before the Federal Shariat Court
and no other court of criminal jurisdiction is competent to entertain and adjudicate upon proceedings connected with
Hudood offences---Initiation of proceedings to quash First Information Report or pending criminal proceeding related
to Hudood matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court in view of the mandate of Art.203-
DD of the Constitution---Remedy against grant or refusal of bail before or during the trial of any of the above
mentioned offences lies before Federal Shariat Court alone and no other court has jurisdiction to entertain any
proceedings in such matters---Federal Shariat Court directed that present declaration relating to Protection of
Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006, The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as well as Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 shall take effect as from 22nd June, 2011 by which date necessary steps be taken by the
Federal Government to amend the impugned laws in conformity with present declaration whereafter the impugned
provision shall cease to be effective and present judgment of the Federal Shariat Court will be operative as on
22-6-2011---Other items of the Declaration become operative forthwith.
7 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Citation Name: 2007 SCMR 808 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case
GHULAM NABI VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--364-A , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--382 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--404 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--441 ,
---Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 382, 404, 441, 109 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), Preamble---Reappraisal of evidence---Last seen evidence---Witnesses of last seen evidence and
recoveries were quite independent and confidence inspiring---Judicial confession recorded on last day of physical
remand---Effect---Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he, after kidnapping a minor girl, committed her
murder---Complainant (father of deceased) lodged F.I.R. against accused on the basis of suspicion and last seen
evidence---Trial Court/Special Court convicted accused and awarded him sentence of death on two counts viz.
under S.302(b), P.P.C. and 364-A, P.P.C.---Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by High Court---Accused
contended that last seen evidence did not have any evidentiary value; that recovery of dead body on pointation of
accused and golden ear-rings of deceased might not be sufficient to prove charge of murder; that judicial confession
of accused was manipulated by police by way of torture , hence, the same was of no value; that judicial confession
of accused was recorded on last day of his physical remand with police and such facts and circumstances of case
might not justify capital punishment, rather sentence of life imprisonment was to be sufficient to meet the ends of
justice---Validity---Witnesses of last seen evidence and recoveries were quite independent and confidence
inspiring---Accused had not been able to point out any , material discrepancy or contradiction in prosecution
evidence to suggest any doubt qua the credibility of evidence of recovery of dead body and other articles belonging
to deceased at his pointation---Witness of last seen evidence had no enmity, personal grudge or Malice against
accused to make false statement---Witnesses of recovery of dead body and ear-rings of deceased were entirely
independent and had no reason to make false statement against accused in a case of capital punishment---
Magistrate who recorded confessional statement of accused had categorically stated that he recorded confessional
statement of accused after completion of all formalities, providing sufficient time to him to think over the matter
before making confession---Perusal of statement of witnesses together with confessional statement of accused
would suggest that there was no clement of coercion, undue influence or pressure rather record showed that
confession was made voluntarily and was truthful---Mere fact that confessional statement was made on last day of
physical remand was not indicative of any doubt regarding its voluntariness to exclude the same from consideration,
instead it was to ensure its voluntariness because accused was aware of the fact that he would not be again given
in custody of police and was being sent to judicial custody---Accused had committed murder of a girl of minor age by
way of suffocation and in a brutal manner, therefore, he did not deserve leniency in matter of sentence---Petition for
leave to appeal was dismissed.
FAZAL DAD VS Col.(Rtd.) GHULAM MUHAMMAD MALIK
PLD 1993 SC 473,
---S. 6 & Preamble---Acts of terrorism---Trial---Object of promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was to control
acts of terrorism, sectarian violence and other heinous offences as defined in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and
their speedy trial---To bring the offence within the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it is essential to examine that
offence should have nexus with the object of the Act and is covered by its relevant provisions.
8 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Citation Name: 2006 PLD 331 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
QAMAR HUSSAIN SHAH VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Juvenile Justice
System Ordinance 2000--PREAMBLE ,
----Preamble---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Preamble---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
Preamble---Jurisdiction of Courts created under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 to take cognizance and try the offences of said Acts in respect of all the accused persons including major and
minor---Scope and extent---Principles.
Citation Name: 2006 PLD 331 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
QAMAR HUSSAIN SHAH VS State
2005 MLD 1028, 2005 MLD 353,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--PREAMBLE ,
--Preamble---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Preamble---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
Preamble---Provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to be read with other laws including Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Principles.
Citation Name: 2005 PCRLJ 1442 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case
State VS Jamadar MUHAMMAD KHAN
PLD 2004 SC 917,
1997--PREAMBLE ,
---Preamble, Ss.6, 7 & 8---Object and purpose of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Object to promulgate Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, was to control the acts of terrorism, Sectarian violence and other heinous offences as defined in S.6 of
the said Act and their speedy trials---Such offences should have nexus with the object of the Act and should be
covered by its Ss.6, 7 & 8.
AKHTAR HUSSAIN VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.3, LAHORE
9 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
---Preamble---Object and purpose of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had provided for
prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offences and for matters connected
therewith and incidental thereto.
Citation Name: 2005 MLD 13 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF OJLA, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIALKOT, PRESENTLY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
FAISALABAD VS Malik MUHAMMAD IQBAL, EX-DIG, GUJRANWALA and 17 others
----Preamble & S.12---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was a special enactment and it had meaning and spirit of its
provisions---Special enactment needed to be taken in perspective of its own object and any departure from same
would be negation of its object and spirit.
Citation Name: 2003 CLD 1797 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
SULEMAN VS MANAGER, DOMESTIC BANKING, HABIB BANK LTD.
----Preamble---Terrorism is a fast going phenomena ---Making laths and taking appropriate measures by all civilized
States within their Constitutional system to combat terrorism would be in larger public interest.
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ VS MUHAMMAD ASHIQ
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Preamble---Object---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was brought into force for the prevention of
terrorism, sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offences for matters connected therewith and incidental
thereto.
BASHIR AHMED VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE ,
----S. 10(4)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 12 & Sched.-- Gang rape---Jurisdiction of Special Court---
Scope---Trial of scheduled offence under the provision of S.12 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is exclusively vested in
the Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
10 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
MUHAMMAD RASHID VS THE STATE
----Preamble---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b) & 382---Trial by the Judge, Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, is not
vitiated merely because the accused were not charged or convicted under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997.
Citation Name: 2001 PLD 1049 Bookmark this Case
VS
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--187 ,
---Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal against acquittal of persons charged with double murder b Special Court
Suppression of Terrorist Activities which was upheld b the High Court on the ground that the prosecution had failed
to prove he case beyond reasonable doubt---Neither Advocate nor the Advocate-on-record for the petitioner was
present in the Court to argue the case ---Supreme Court observed that time had come when stern measures had to
be taken in order to preserve the system of administration of justice to discourage protracted trials, so as to improve
access to justice and enable; the accused to have a fair trial, so that those found guilty were suitably punished and
innocent people were set at liberty; that ordinarily the Court would have disposed of the petition for non-prosecution
but that would have the effect of seriously jeopardizing the victims rights or the rights of victims heirs for no fault of
theirs, inasmuch as the heirs of the deceased had engaged a counsel for the Supreme Court as well as an
Advocate-on-Record for pursuing the case but none had appeared to discharge their duty to their client as well as
the Court; such a state of affairs was indeed deplorable---Counsel and the Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner had
not shown the minimum courtesy of submitting an application for adjournment with reasons in that regard---
Supreme Court, after going through the available material on record found that judgment of the Trial Court had not
been appended to the petition---In order to ascertain true facts Supreme Court ordered to issue notice to the
Advocate-General of the concerned Province as well as the private respondents---Notice was also ordered to be
issued to both the counsel and advocate-on-record for the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action be
not taken against them for their non-appearance in the Court.
BASHIR AHMAD VS NAVEED IQBAL
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
11 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Act of terrorism/terrorist act---Death by sprinkling of spirit---
Occurrence took place within boundary walls of house of victim---Case was transferred by Anti-Terrorism Court to
the Court of ordinary jurisdiction---High Court refused to interfere with the order of transfer---Validity---Alleged
sprinkling of the spirit on the person -of the victim was within the boundary walls of the complainant's house---Where
the offence committed was not in public, the element of a striking terror or creating sense of fear and insecurity in
the people, o: any section of the people was not made discernible in the F.I.R and for that matter on the record of
the case as a whole---Offences mentioned in the Schedule should have nexus with the object of. the Act and the
offences covered by sections 6, 7 and 8 thereof---Heinousness
MUMTAZ ALI KHAN RAJBAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Preamble---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Preamble--Applicability---Object, nature and purpose of both the
Acts---Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975) not impliedly repealed by Anti-Terrorism
Act (XXVII of 1997)---Purpose of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 is of suppressing
acts of sabotage, subversion and terrorism and to provide for speedy trial of offences committed in furtherance of or
in conviction with such acts---Object of AntiTerrorism Act, 1997 primarily is to prevent terrorism, sectarian violence
and speedy trial of heinous offences and although this Act to some extent contains the substantive law, but primarily
it is procedural in nature---Some
IMRAN RAZA KHAN, ADVOCATE VS S. S. P., LAHORE
----Ss. 19, 6 & Sched.---Powers of Anti-Terrorism Court---Scope---Private complaint, entertainment of---Anti-

Terrorism Court has power to entertain a private complaint directly if it discloses the commission of offence falling
within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and its Schedule.
JAMAT-I-ISLAMI PAKISTAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Preamble---Anti-Terrorism (Second Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1999), Preamble---
Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (IV of 1999), Preamble---Comparative analysis of the three enactments and
situations pre and post-Mehram Ali's case PLD 1998 SC 1445.
12 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORIST COURT NO.2, BAHAWALPUR
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 ,
S. 2(e) & Sched., Item (2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorist Court---Criteria
to determine--Leave to appeal was granted and trial of the case was stayed by Supreme Court to examine the
contention that Anti-Terrorist Court could assume jurisdiction if conditions laid down under Sched., Item (2) of the
Act were fulfilled and as to what was the definition of word "victim" used in item (2) of the Sched. to Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997.
THE STATE VS ABDUL MALIK
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 S. 10(4)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Preamble, Ss.6(c) & 7--Object and purpose of
enactment of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---"Heinous Offence"---Nature---Rape---Victim, a child---Jurisdiction of Special
Court--Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was enacted for the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violation, for speedy trial of
heinous offences and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto---Heinous offence was an offence
which was wicked, atrocious, cruel and offensive---Offence of raping a girl aged 6/7 years was an act which by all
standards was cruel, wicked and offensive and could fall within ambit of expression "heinous offence" used in the
preamble of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 calling for extraordinary remedy in law---Offence of raping girl of 6/7 years old
was not only heinous but would also constitute a "terrorist act" as defined in S.6(c) of the said Act--Rape of a minor
girl of seven years would ordinarily lead to a sense of fear and insecurity as stipulated in S.6(c) of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 and would fall within ambit of the Act.
Citation Name: 2000 PCRLJ 726 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
IMAM ALI VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM
----S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6 & Sched., C1.2(a)(iv)---Terrorist act---Act of accused, which
though fell under cl.2(a)(iv) of the Sched. to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, should have some connection or nexus with
the provisions of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997--_Violence which resulted in the death of the victim should strike in
the minds . of the people to be a terror and the death should have been caused with weapons enumerated in S.6 or
a lethal weapon---Lethal weapon ---Concept--Strangulation with a Dopatta by tightening the noose would not
amount to cause death by a lethal weapon---Murder perpetrated by weapons other than those mentioned in S.6,
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, would not attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Principles.
LIAQUAT HUSSAIN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
13 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
PLD 1998 SC 1445,
S.6 & Sched.---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXV11 of 1997), Preamble--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 184(3)---Vires of
Pakistan Armed Forces (Acting in Aid of the Civil Power) Ordinance, 1998---Constitutional petition before Supreme
Court under Art.184(3) of the Constitution---Provisions of Pakistan Armed Forces (Acting in Aid of the Civil Power)
Ordinance, 1998, in so far as these allow the establishment of Military Courts for trial of civilians charged with the
offences mentioned in S.6 and Schedule to the said Ordinance, are unconstitutional, without lawful authority and of
no legal effect---Cases wherein sentences have already been awarded but the same have not yet been executed,
shall stand set aside and the cases stand transferred to the Anti-Terrorist Courts already in existence or which may
be created in terms of guidelines provided by the Supreme Court which may contribute towards the achievement of
the objective---Evidence already recorded in such cases and the pending cases shall be read as evidence in the
cases, provided that same shall not affect any of the powers of the Presiding Officers of Anti-Terrorist Courts in that
regard as is available under the law---Sentences and punishments already awarded and executed in the cases will
be treated as past and closed transactions and will not be affected by the decision of the Supreme Court.
KHADIM HUSSAIN VS STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--2 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance 1979--10 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
----Ss.364-A & 302---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(J)---Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), S.2(e) & Sched.---Jurisdiction of Special Court---Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 had no jurisdiction to try the case against the accused as none of the offences with which he was charged was
a scheduled offence on the day of occurrence--- Convictions and sentences awarded to accused by Special Court
were consequently set aside and the case was remanded to Sessions Court for fresh trial in accordance with law.
TARIQ AZIZ VS B.A. FAKHARI, JUDGE SPECIAL COURT, ANTI-TERRORISM, DERA GHAZI KHAN
----S. 302/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sched., para.2(a)(ii) & (iii)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art. 199---Constitutional petition--Jurisdiction, of Special Court---Deceased being a public servant (Head Constable),
case against accused fell under para. 2(a)(ii) of the amended Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Word "or"
occurring in the last of the said subpara.(ii) showed that sub-para.(iii) was an independent paragraph and was not to
be read as continuation of sub-para.(ii)---Special Court, therefore, had the jurisdiction to try the case in which the
deceased was a public servant, even if the offence was committed before the commencement of the Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine accordingly.
14 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS S.H.O.
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----S. 6---"Terrorism", "terrorist organisation" and "criminal activity"--Meanings and objects---
Remedy.
Citation Name: 1999 MLD 3236 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
ABDUL KARIM VS STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--5 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE ,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 5, 6 & Sched---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.439---Terrorist act---
Jurisdiction of Special Court---Cases had been sent for trial to the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997---Last lines of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had to be read in conjunction with the earlier part of the
said section and not disjunctively---Unless the act of accused was shown to have been covered by earlier part of the
said S.6, the last lines of the same would not; ipso facto, bring the alleged act within the scope of "Terrorist Act"---
Earlier part of S.6 admittedly was not attracted to the cases, nor these were the cases of preventing Armed Forces
or Civil Armed Forces from performing their duties within the scope of S.5 of the Act---Offences in question, thus,
were neither scheduled offences, nor offences under the said Act---Impugned orders assigning the cases to Special
Court for trial were, consequently, set aside and the same were directed to be tried by the Sessions Court.
MEHRAM ALI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
PLD 1984 Lah. 69,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.37(d)---Promotion of social justice and
eradication of social evils---No objection can be taken to the establishment of Special Courts for Speedy Trials and
prevention of terrorist acts/heinous offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Such Courts being validly
constituted Courts are subordinate to the High Court and have to perform judicial functions under the Constitution
and provisions contained in the Act (except which have been declared ultra vires).
PLD 1969 SC 623, PLD 1991 SC 329, PLD 1997 SC 582,
15 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 & Fourth Sched., Concurrent
Legislative List, Items 1, 2, 4, 46 & 47---Subject of Legislation clearly falling in the Concurrent Legislative List of
Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan and there being nothing in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which was
against Islamic Principles of administration of justice, Parliament was competent to legislate the Act---High Court
under its Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution could not question wisdom of the Legislature
for jurisdiction of High Court was limited only to finding out as to whether any provision of the Constitution of
Pakistan had been violated by enacting a law.--[Vires of legislation.
SHER MUHAMMAD VS STATE
1971 PCr.LJ 1047, PLD 1973 Lah. 365, PLD 1983 SC 291,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--19 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--32 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Constitution of
Pakistan 1973--4 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--9 ,
----Ss. 19 & 32---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340(l) --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.4 &
9---Conduct of trial by Special Court---Proper opportunity of defence through a counsel to be provided to accused---
Guidelines for Special Courts.
1991 MLD 2622, 1991 SCMR 1041, 1992 SCMR 602, 1997 SCMR 641, PLD 1965 Lah. 229, PLD 1969 SC 623,
PLD 1975 SC 506, PLD 1989 Lah. 554, PLD 1990 SC 99, PLD 1991 SC 329, PLD 1993 SC 901, PLD 1997 SC
582,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 & Fourth Sched., Concurrent
Legislative List, Items 1, 2, 4, 46 & 47---Subject of Legislation clearly falling in the Concurrent Legislative List of
Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan and there being nothing in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which was
against Islamic Principles of administration of justice, Parliament was competent to legislate the Act---High Court
under its Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution could not question wisdom of the Legislature
for jurisdiction of High Court was limited only to finding out as to whether any provision of the Constitution of
Pakistan had been violated by enacting a law.--[Vires of legislation].
NOOR MUHAMMAD VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, BAHAWALPUR
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--13 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
16 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
----S. 526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 13 & Sched.---
Transfer of case---Murder of member of Armed Forces---Accused had sought transfer of case pending in Court of
Special Judge constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction on ground that
in view of amendment made in Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Court of Special Judge had ceased to have
jurisdiction in the matter---Accused had further contended that as offence had allegedly been committed prior to
enforcement of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Special Court had no jurisdiction in the matter---Contentions of accused
were repelled being highly misconceived because amended provision had shown that under Entry No. 2(a)(ii) in
Schedule, case of an alleged murder of a member of Armed, Forces was exclusively triable by a Special Court---
Deceased being employee of Pakistan Air Force, case would be tried by Special Court and not by ordinary Court of
competent jurisdiction---High Court declined to transfer case from Court of Special Judge to ordinary Court of
competent jurisdiction.
Notes on Cases
September
CLC Notes
YLR Notes
PCrLJ Notes
Journals
September
PLD SCMR
CLD PTD
MLD PLC
CLC YLR
PCrLJ GBLR
Miscellaneous
Circulars
General Orders
Notifications
New Statutes
17 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM
Federal
Punjab
KPK
Balochistan
Sindh
Copyrights © 2020 by Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)

This site is developed & maintained Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)
Help (/Login/HelpPage) FAQ's Sitemap
18 of 18 10/15/2020, 11:53 AM

Preamble

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preamble

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.

Search in Staute -- Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-PREAMBLE

Enter Keyword Enter Court All Search

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-PREAMBLE

Your Search returned total 46 records from 0 - 46

Citation Name: 2018 PLD 178 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

S. 6 & Preamble---Cases attracting the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Pre-requisites---Creating terror or

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2018 PLD 178 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

PLD 1998 SC 1445,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 YLR 461 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

KHAN JAVED KHAN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 MLD 586 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 MLD 117 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

FARID ULLAH VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 YLRN 442 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

BUKHSHAL VS SPECIAL JUDGE (ANTI TERRORISM), HYDERABAD

Head Notes Case Description

JAWAHIR KHAN VS State

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2015 YLR 2409 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

GHULAM AKBAR VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 PLD 644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS State

Preamble, Third Sched., Ss.1, 6, 7, 23 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 374 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Bookmark this Case

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2013 MLD 1872 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

State VS KHAISTA RAHMAN

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE ,

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2012 PLD 122 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD RASOOL VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2012 PLD 122 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD RASOOL VS State

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE ,

S. 12 & Preamble---Jurisdiction, determination of---Essentials---While determining jurisdiction it would be necessary

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2012 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case

GUL MUHAMMAD VS State

PLD 2001 SC 96,

Preamble & S.6(2)(g)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)---Qatl-e-Amd---"Terrorism"---Allegation of "Siyahkari"---

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2012 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case

GUL MUHAMMAD VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2011 YLR 1319 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

Syeda ZAHIDA RIZVI VS THE STATE through D.S.P.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2011 PLD 1 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Bookmark this Case

Mian ABDUR RAZZAQ AAMIR VS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

Preamble---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Preamble---Offence of Qazf

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2007 SCMR 808 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

GHULAM NABI VS State