Section 6

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 1997-6
Enter Keyword Enter Court All Search
Back
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-6
Your Search returned total 572 records from 0 - 50
Citation Name: 2020 SCMR 1422 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case
SADIQ ULLAH VS State
Ss. 6 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to court of ordinary
jurisdiction---"Terrorism"---Scope---Personal dispute---Female medical student allegedly murdered over refusal of
marriage---Held, that there were no benign murders nor the aftermaths of violence endured by its victims and
anguish suffered by their families could be quantified in an empirical gauge---Magnitude of every murder and
concomitant loss impacted the surroundings differently, which inevitably were gripped by fear and shock, however,
the intensity of brutality and loss of life, consequent thereupon, by themselves did not bring a violent act within the
contemplated purview of "terrorism"---"Terrorism" was a distinct phenomena achieved through violent means and
ends other than settlement of personal scores---While the tragedy in the present case that befell upon the deceased
girl evolved profound shock and deserved to be appropriately visited on the strength of evidence, so as to ensure
justice to her family, it nonetheless, could not be equated with "terrorism"---Case was withdrawn from the Anti-
Terrorism Court and entrusted to the concerned Sessions Judge, who was directed to conclude the trial in jail
premises by recording evidence of the remaining witnesses---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal
and allowed accordingly.
Head Notes Case Description
ABDUL HAQ VS State
1 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check
S. 6(2)(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-A---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Reappraisal of evidence---

Benefit of doubt---Alleged abductee returned home on his own with some marks of violence on his wrist and ankle
joints, and disclosed to the Investigating Officer that he was let off 3/4 days before his return---Abductee, in his
statement before a Magistrate, did not mention the date of his return---Prosecution's reliance on the injuries endured
by the abductee, allegedly during his captivity faded into insignificance, particularly in the absence of duration
thereof in the medico legal certificate---Complainant, who was the real brother of the abductee, appeared in the
witness box but did not point his finger on the accused persons---Complainant being the real brother of the
abductee, was expected to bring on record the information subsequently shared with him by the abductee---
Abductee massively improved upon his previous statements and was duly confronted with his deviations---Abductee
also admitted his acquaintance with one of the accused persons, his co-villager, while evasively avoiding a query
regarding pendency of different civil and criminal cases instituted by said accused persons against the abductee as
well as the complainant---Similarly, in his examination-in-chief, the abductee did not name another accused person
as being one of the culprits; while denying litigation between the two families, he however, admitted that both the
accused persons in question were real brothers inter se, and lived in the same neighbourhood---No importance
could be attached to the identification parade, conducted under magisterial supervision in such backdrop---In the
totality of circumstances, the prosecution case was not free from doubt---Convictions of accused persons and life
time sentences awarded consequent thereupon could not be sustained merely on the basis of some superficial
healed wounds, genesis whereof was also shrouded in mystery of time and space---Petitions for leave to appeal,
were converted into appeals and allowed and accused persons were acquitted of the charge.
FAROOQ AHMED VS State
Ss. 6 & 7---Act of terrorism --- Murder committed due to personal enmity---Provisions of Ss. 6 & 7 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 would not be attracted if the murder was committed to avenge private enmity.
FAROOQ AHMED VS State
Ss. 6(1)(b) & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Act of terrorism, qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---
Murder committed due to previous enmity---Provisions of Ss. 6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, not attracted in a
case of personal enmity---Held, that at a point between the Sessions Court and its canteen the accused along with
co-accused persons fired at the deceased and killed him---Alleged motive for the crime was that the deceased had
murdered a brother of one of the co-accused---Motive of the crime was thus previous enmity---Accused was
arrested on the spot and the weapon of offence was also recovered from him---Nothing was available on the record
to show that the accused wanted to create fear or insecurity or terror in or around the Court premises---After
shooting the deceased the accused did not offer resistance and was arrested by the police along with the weapon of
offence---Since the accused had committed the offence to avenge the murder committed by the deceased, his
action would not fall under the ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Conviction of accused under S. 7 of
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was set aside, in circumstances.
2 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 61 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case
GHULAM HUSSAIN VS State
S. 6 & Third Sched. Entry No.4---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Heinous offences specified under
Entry No.4 to Third Sched. of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, that did not constitute terrorism---Such heinous offences
did not per se constitute the offence of terrorism but were to be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court because of their
inclusion in the Third Sched.---In such cases an Anti-Terrorism Court could punish the person committing such
specified heinous offences only for commission of those offences and not for committing terrorism because such
offences did not constitute terrorism---Supreme Court observed that definition of 'terrorism' contained in S. 6 of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('the Act') as it stood at present was too wide and the same included many actions, designs
and purposes which had no nexus with the generally recognized concept of what terrorism was; that including some
other heinous offences in the Preamble and the Third Sched. to that Act for trial of such offences by an Anti-
Terrorism Court when such other offences did not qualify to be included in the definition of "terrorism" put an extra
and unnecessary burden on such courts and caused delay in trial of actual cases of terrorism; that the Parliament
may consider substituting the present definition of 'terrorism' by a more succinct definition bringing it in line with the
international perspectives of that offence and focusing on violent activities aimed at achieving political, ideological or
religious objectives and that the Parliament may also consider suitably amending the Preamble to the Act and
removing all those offences from the Third Sched. to the Act which offences had no nexus with the offence of
terrorism.
S. 6(2)---"Terrorism"---Offence committed due to personal enmity or vendetta---Actions specified in subsection (2) of

S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not qualify to be labeled or characterized as terrorism if such actions were
taken in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta.
S. 6(3)---"Terrorism"---Section 6(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Scope---Subsection (3) of S.6 of the Act,
provided that "The use or threat of use of any action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms,
explosive or any other weapon is "terrorism", whether or not subsection (1)(c) is satisfied" which meant that if for
commission of the actions mentioned in subsection (2) of S.6, a firearm, an explosive substance or any other
weapon was actually used or a threat regarding use of the same was extended then all such actions were to
constitute the offence of terrorism even if the other requirements of cl.(c) of subsection (1) of S. 6 were not satisfied
or fulfilled---Provisions of S.6(3) of the Act were quite problematic as they did not piece well with the remaining
provisions of S. 6 as far as the matter of defining "terrorism" was concerned---If provisions of subsection (3) of S.6 of
the Act, as they were worded, were to be given effect then the distinction between the peculiar offence of terrorism
and most of the run of the mill offences committed in the society in routine would be obliterated---Supreme Court
observed that the legislature may like to have another look at the provisions of S.6(3) of the Act and to consider
deleting or suitably amending the same so as to bring them in harmony with the remaining provisions of the Act.
3 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 6---"Terrorism"---Historical account of different acts, events, episodes and phenomena that have from time to time
been perceived or understood in different parts of the world to be "terrorism", provided.
Ss. 6 & 7(e) & Third Sched. Entry No.4---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-A---Explosive Substances Act (VI of
1908), Ss. 4(b), 5 & 6---Terrorism, kidnapping or abduction for ransom, possessing explosives---Offences mentioned
under Entry No. 4 to Third Sched. of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Conviction for such offences under the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Scope---Offence of abduction or kidnapping for ransom under S.365-A, P.P.C. was included in
Entry No. 4 of the Third Sched. to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and kidnapping for ransom was also one of the
actions specified in S.7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Abduction or kidnapping for ransom was a heinous
offence but the scheme of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 showed that an ordinary case of abduction or kidnapping for
ransom under S.365-A, P.P.C. was merely triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court but if kidnapping for ransom was
committed with the design or purpose mentioned in cl. (b) or cl. (c) of subsection (1) of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 then such offence amounted to terrorism attracting S.7(e) of that Act---In the former case the convicted person
was to be convicted and sentenced only for the offence under S. 365-A, P.P.C. whereas in the latter case the
convicted person was to be convicted both for the offence under S.365-A, P.P.C. as well as for the offence under
S.7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Same rule may also be applied to the other offences mentioned in Entry No.
4 of the Third Sched. to the Act pertaining to "Use of firearms or explosives by any device, including bomb blast in a
mosque, imambargah, church, temple or any other place of worship, whether or not any hurt or damage is caused
thereby", "Firing or use of explosive by any device, including bomb blast in the court premises", "Hurt caused by
corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance" and "Unlawful possession of an
explosive substance or abetment for such an offence under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908"---Such distinction
between cases of terrorism and other heinous offences by itself explained and recognizes that all heinous offences,
howsoever serious, grave, brutal, gruesome, macabre or shocking, did not ipso facto constitute terrorism which was
a species apart.
4 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(1) & 6(2)---"Terrorism"---Acts constituting terrorism in terms of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('the Act')---
Scope---'Actus reus' and 'mens rea' for terrorism---Scope---For an action or threat of action to be accepted as
terrorism within the meanings of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 the action must fall in subsection (2) of S.6 of
the said Act and the use or threat of such action must be designed to achieve any of the objectives specified in cl.
(b) of subsection (1) of S.6 of Act or the use or threat of such action must be to achieve any of the purposes
mentioned in cl. (c) of subsection (1) of S.6 of that Act---Requirements that needed to be satisfied for invoking cl.(c)
of subsection (1) of S.6 were that the use or threat of action should be for "the purpose of advancing areligious,
sectarian or ethnic cause" or for the purpose of"intimidating and terrorizing the public, social sectors, media persons,
business community" or for the purpose of "attacking the civilians, including damaging property by ransacking,
looting, arson, or by any other means, government officials, installations, security forces or law enforcement
agencies"---Clause (b) of subsection (1) of S.6 specified the 'design' and cl.(c) of subsection (1) of S.6 earmarked
the 'purpose' which should be the motivation for the act and the actus reus had been clearly mentioned in
subsection (2) of S.6---Only when the actus reus specified in subsection (2) of S.6 was accompanied by the
requisite mens rea provided for in cl.(b) or cl.(c) of subsection (1) of S.6 that an action could be termed as
'terrorism'---Thus, it was not the fear or insecurity actually created or intended to be created or likely to be created
which would determine whether the action qualified to be termed as terrorism or not but it was the intent and
motivation behind the action which would be determinative of the issue irrespective of the fact whether any fear and
insecurity was actually created or not---Any action constituting an offence, howsoever grave, shocking, brutal,
gruesome or horrifying, did not qualify to be termed as terrorism if it was not committed with the design or purpose
specified or mentioned in cls. (b) or cl.(c) of subsection (1) of S.6 of the Act---Action could be termed as terrorism if
the use or threat of that action was designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or a
section of the public or community or sect, etc. or if such action was designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity
in the society or the use or threat was made for the purpose of advancing a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause,
etc.---Creating fear or insecurity in the society was not by itself terrorism unless the motive itself was to create fear
or insecurity in the society and not when fear or insecurity was just a by product, a fallout or an unintended
consequence of a private crime---Mere shock, horror, dread or disgust created or likely to be created in the society
did not transform a private crime into "terrorism"---"Terrorism" was a totally different concept which denoted
commission of a crime with the design or purpose of destabilizing the government, disturbing the society or hurting a
section of the society with a view to achieve objectives which were essentially political, ideological or religious---
Violent activity against civilians that had no political, ideological or religious aims was just an act of criminal
delinquency, a felony, or simply an act of insanity unrelated to "terrorism".
ALI GOHAR VS PERVAIZ AHMED
Ss. 6 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Triple murder over a private dispute relating to chiefdom of a
tribe---Act of terrorism---Scope---Present case related to rivalry over the chiefdom of a tribe, and thus was
essentially a private dispute between two families within a tribe---Admittedly the accused side and complainant party
were closely related to each other through marriage---No doubt the facts recorded in FIR depicted a shocking,
brutal, and gruesome crime leading to a triple murder case, but the very design and purpose leading to the crime
being a private dispute relating to tribal ascendancy would result in keeping the same outside the scope of the term
"terrorism" within the contemplation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly transferred the
case to an ordinary criminal court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed
accordingly.
5 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

ALI GOHAR VS PERVAIZ AHMED
S. 6---"Act of terrorism"---Scope---No matter how grave, shocking, brutal, gruesome or horrifying the offence, it
would not fall within the scope of terrorism, if it was not committed with the design or purpose specified or mentioned
in cl. (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('the Act')---Even if an offence fell squarely
within the scope specified in subsection (2) of S.6 of the Act, it would not constitute the offence of terrorism, if the
same was in furtherance of a private dispute or vendetta.
Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1241 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case
MOHIBULLAH VS State
Ss. 302, 324 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd,
assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, act of terrorism---Public servant not in
official uniform---Accused was alleged to have murdered one of the levies officials when he was trying to arrest the
accused on account of engagement in an altercation with another group---Validity---Act of accused was not
committed with design or purpose specified in clause (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Such act did not fall within the ambit of "terrorism" because only the deceased was targeted who was not
wearing official uniform---None of the other levies officials had received any injury and the deceased had received
only one fireshot injury on his person---Conviction of accused under S.7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 recorded by Trial
Court was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge.
Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1228 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD ASIF VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT
S. 6---"Act of terrorism"---Prerequisites---Only that action is to be accepted as terrorism which action falls within
purview of S. 6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Such action which is committed with a 'design' or 'purpose' specified
in S. 6(1)(b) or (c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 irrespective of gravity of an offence, shocking nature of violence
committed or mere fear and insecurity generated or likely to be generated by commission of a brutal, gruesome or
heinous act are not to be treated as yardsticks for determining whether action is labeled as 'terrorism' or not.
MUHAMMAD ASIF VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT
6 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(1)(b)(c), 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 427---Act of terrorism---Jurisdiction of special
court---Transfer 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.
State VS JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
S. 6---"Terrorism"---Murderous assault on the police in order to save oneself from arrest---Scope---Question

requiring determination by the court was whether the alleged act of the accused and his co-accused of launching
murderous assault on the police party, who had intercepted and recovered narcotic substance from him, was
accompanied by a "design" or "purpose" within the ambit of subsection (1)(b) & (c) of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 in order to attract any of the categories specified in subsection (2) thereof or not---Allegation was serious one
but it was not accompanied by the design of creating the sense of fear and terrorism---Theme for insurgence of the
provisions was specifically mentioned as an act designed to coerce, intimidate or overawe the government or the
police or section of the public to create the sense of insecurity, fear and panic in the society---Alleged act of the
accused was the result of his attempt to save himself from the arrest, which did not fall within the categories
specified under subsection (2) of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Allegations leveled against the accused did
not attract the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Impugned order did not suffer from any illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional defect warranting interference by the High Court---Revision petition was dismissed in limine.
ABDUL RASHEED alias SOMI VS State
S. 6---"Terrorism"---Scope---Terrorists operate on a level different from that on which ordinary criminals operate,
their operations and tactics are different and the offence of terrorism is more concerned with the object and design
behind an action than with the action itself---Action taken, in order to qualify as "terrorism", must be designed to
accomplish a larger objective and primarily the act must not be directed against the actual victims themselves who
are treated merely as 'collateral damage'---Extent of the actual damage caused or injuries inflicted by the act is not
the determinative factor in this regard---Ferocious action against neutrals that has no dogmatic, conceptual or
religious aims is just an act of criminal delinquency, a crime, or simply an act of senselessness unrelated to
terrorism.
7 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 23 & 6---"Terrorism"---Power to transfer cases to regular courts---Personal enmity---Scope---Old feud between
the parties has always been considered as one of the circumstances to bring a case out of the scope of "terrorism"
because normally in such like matters the prime object is always to settle personal score rather than creating a
sense of terrorism.
Ss. 23 & 6---"Terrorism"---Power to transfer case to regular court---Material to be considered---Scope---Court, in

order to determine whether a case is triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or not, is required to examine the
FIR, the statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., the material collected by the investigating agency and other
documents available with the prosecution---Inclusion of surrounding circumstances, depicting the commission of the
offence, prima facie permits taking into consideration the documents/material that comes onto surface with regard to
the previous enmity or the dispute.
Ss. 23 & 6---"Terrorism"---Power to transfer cases to regular court---Enmity between the two groups---Absence of
mens rea---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Judge Anti-Terrorism Court whereby he had dismissed the
application under S. 23, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---
Prosecution case was that an altercation had taken place between two groups over the dispute pertaining to seating
of passengers from the bus stand which resulted in exchange of fires with each other resulting into death of three
persons and injuries to others---Evidentiary material collected during investigation indicated that the occurrence had
takenplace in consequence of personal enmity as there existed a long history of litigation between the parties on the
issuance of license of a particular bus stand and the said litigation was pending before the High Court till date, which
clearly reflected existence of personal enmity between the two groups---Prime object of the parties was to settle
personal score rather than to create a sense of "terrorism"---No evidence was available to suggest that the action
was taken with any design, purpose, intention and mens rea of causing "terrorism"---High Court directed Judge Anti-
Terrorism Court to transfer the record of case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Revision petition was allowed
accordingly.
Citation Name: 2020 MLD 817 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
ABDUL HASEEB YOUSAF VS State
8 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

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.
Citation Name: 2020 PLD 332 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
Mst. PARVEEN BIBI VS State
S. 6 & Third Sched, Item 4(iv)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.336-B, 302, 364, 148 & 149---Constitution of
Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping and hurt caused by corrosive substances---
Transfer of case---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Complainant lodged F.I.R. for qatl-i-amd of her son and
mutilation of his dead body with acid---Trial Court transferred case to court of ordinary jurisdiction as it did not attract
provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity---Dead body was mutilated by pouring acid thereupon but even
then, case did not fall within jurisdiction of special court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Complainant
herself mentioned in crime report that acid was poured upon corpse of deceased after his death---Medical officer
even after receipt of report from Forensic Science Agency expressed his inability to opine with certainty about actual
causes which led to death of deceased---Case was of homicidal death and not of causing hurt as latter stood for
causing injury to a living person---High Court declined to interfere in transfer of case as there was no perversity---
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 19 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
ZAIN-UL-ABIDEEN VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
9 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 336, 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii) & 376---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), S. 6---Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc., Itlaf-i-Salahiyat-i-Udw, shajjah-
i-mudihah, mutalahimah and rape---Quashing of order---Objection raised by the petitioner that the case was triable
by Anti-Terrorism Court, was overruled---Validity---Record showed that the alleged occurrence towards abduction of
sister of the petitioner and causing her injuries by throwing acid upon her was committed on 01.09.2008---At that
time, neither any penal clause for hurt through corrosive substance, including acid, was available in the Penal Code,
1860 nor in Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, any such offence was described, because Ss. 336-A &
336-B were inserted in P.P.C. from 28.11.2011---Offence of hurt through corrosive substance was included in the
Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 on 05.09.2012---Circumstances clearly showed that at the time of commission
of the alleged occurrence, neither the said provisions of P.P.C., regarding hurt by corrosive substance were on the
statute book nor in the Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, any such offence was included---Accused could
not be tried and punished for an offence which at the time of commission of occurrence was not made punishable---
No retrospective effect to a penal provision could be given---Circumstances established that the objection of the
petitioner before the Trial Court, for sending the case to Anti-Terrorism Court, was unjustified and as such rightly
turned down, through the order in question---Constitutional petition having no force or merit, was dismissed
accordingly.
Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1843 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
ALI NAWAZ VS State
S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Abduction for
ransom---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in registration of FIR---Identification parade---Benefit of doubt---First
Information Report was registered 5 days after incident of abduction for ransom wherein brother of complainant was
allegedly abducted by accused persons---Accused persons were identified during identification parade---Names of
dummies were not mentioned and only one identification parade was held in respect of two abductees---Dummies
were same and identification parade of three accused persons was not conducted separately---No specific role was
assigned to accused persons in the identification parade---Only putting hands on accused persons by witnesses
was not sufficient to believe that those were the same accused persons who had committed offence---Such
identification parade could not be relied upon for awarding punishment for imprisonment for life---Burden to prove
guilt was upon shoulders of prosecution who was bound to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---If
single circumstance had created doubt in case of prosecution, its benefit was to go to accused not as a matter of
grace but as a matter of right---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons by Trial
Court and acquitted them of charge---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.
SHAHZAD alias KALAY KHAN VS State
10 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 4 & 5--- Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Recovery of explosive substance and firearms---Appreciation of evidence---
Recovery---Non-association of private person---Scope---Bomb, pistols .30 bore and six live bullets were recovered
from both the accused persons---Plea raised by accused persons was that private persons were not made
witnesses violating provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Incident was night time occurrence due to which private
public was not available on road and place of arrest was an abandoned area---Recovery was affected at about 0240
hours and it was not possible for police to arrange for private witnesses at odd hours of the night---Such non-
association of private witnesses was not fatal to the case of prosecution---Police officials were as good as private
witnesses and their testimony could not be discarded merely for reason that they were police officials unless
accused persons had succeeded in giving dent to statements of prosecution witnesses and proved their mala fide or
ill-will against accused---Bomb Disposal Unit reports so also Forensic Science Laboratory reports were against
accused persons and were in line with case of prosecution---All witnesses furnished ocular evidence and supported
case of prosecution and no enmity was suggested against accused persons---Prosecution witnesses were cross-
examined at length but there were no major contradictions in their evidence to lead that witnesses were not
trustworthy---High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court---Appeal was
dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2020 PLD 473 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
ABDUL RAHEEM VS State
Ss. 6 & 7---Act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of co-accused---Effect---Accused

was charged on the basis of judicial confession made by principal accused wherein he was nominated---No
corroborative evidence was available against accused and he was not picked out from CCTV/CD footage of murder
of deceased--- Accused was not named by any prosecution witness regarding his involvement in crime---No
recovery was made from accused---No CDR data connected accused with the offence---High Court declined to rely
upon confessional statement of principal accused without independent corroborative evidence---High Court set
aside the conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and acquitted accused of the charge---Appeal
was allowed in circumstances.
ABDUL RAHEEM VS State
11 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 302(b)---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(1)(a), 24 & 25---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2) & 7(a)---
Qatl-i-amd, recovery of firearm, and act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Bhatta, demand of---Striking terror
in community---Proof---Deceased was a businessman who was allegedly murdered by accused as he had refused
to pay Bhatta---Accused had demanded Bhatta from deceased and when deceased refused to pay he shot him 2 to
3 times in cold blood---Motive for murder that deceased refused to pay Bhatta stood proved and accused was the
sole murderer whose firing led to death of deceased---Such was a cold blooded murder carried out in a brutal
manner which had behind it the object, design and intent to send a signal to all businessmen that if they refused to
pay Bhatta, they would meet the same fate as the deceased---Act committed by accused was to create insecurity,
fear and terror within the business community---High Court observed that no leniency was to be shown by Court and
a deterrent sentence was the appropriate one in order to send a loud and clear message to all persons who were
engaged in such heinous crimes---Such accused should not accept any leniency from the Court and if they were
engaged in such heinous crimes it was done so at their own peril---Such persons must be made aware that if they
were to play with fire then they could be burnt---High Court maintained death sentence awarded to accused by Trial
Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1373 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
NADEEM alias CHITTA VS State
Ss. 4 & 5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 6(2)(ee)---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Attempt to cause explosion or for making or keeping explosive with intent to
endanger life or property---Possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances---Unlicensed possession of
arms---Search to be made in presence of witnesses---Act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of
doubt---Un-natural conduct---Safe custody---Failure to seal case property---Corroboratory evidence, non-availability
of---Effect---Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of two bombs, one .30 bore pistol with loaded
magazine, 35 live bullets, one automatic stand gun of .30 bore along with rounded shape magazine and two straight
magazines---Accused was not found connected with any militant group---Police had not associated private
witnesses despite being present, in a well-populated area---Prosecution case had failed to satisfy the test of
reasonableness on the ground that when the accused was loaded with such weapons, why did he not make a single
fire or resisted his arrest---Tampering with case property could not be ruled out as some of the same was not
sealed---Scrutiny of prosecution evidence revealed that grenades found on the person of accused were shown to
have different serial numbers at various places---Safe custody of the case property at police station and safe transit
to experts was also not established---Evidence of police officials did not appear to be trustworthy, thus required
independent corroboration, which was lacking in the case---Prosecution had failed to bring guilt to the accused
person's doorsteps beyond any taint or shadow of doubt, therefore, High Court while extending benefit of doubt to
the accused, acquitted him of the charge---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2020 MLD 1387 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD KHAN VS State
12 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 427, 435 & 506(2)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(2)(c)---Grievous damage to property, mischief
causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage,
criminal intimidation---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-production of burnt property---Non-
production of fireman---Effect---Engineer, Irrigation Department reported the police that he received a letter from
Assistant Executive Engineer along with an application of Project Manager informing that they were present on the
site when they saw one of the accused having jerrican in his hand and the other two nominated accused having
matchboxes in their hands with other 20 unknown persons on the site, threatened them and forcibly set the pipeline
on fire---Held; Appellants were protesting about non-payment of compensation and the executing agency and their
contractors were bent upon to execute the work without satisfying the villagers, whose lands were acquired for the
project---Prosecution witnesses were directly or indirectly under the influence of the complainant---Eye-witnesses
pretended to be the witnesses of the incident---Incident allegedly took place on Friday when the work of pipeline
was not being carried out as it was weekly holiday---Time of incident was exactly the same when the Jummah
prayer was being offered---Availability of eye-witnesses on the aforesaid date and time was highly doubtful
especially when it came on record that the campsite of contract was situated miles away from the place of incident---
Eleven pipes were burned while 12 pipes were saved but neither the burnt pipes nor the safe pipes were produced
before the court as 'real or article evidence'---Prosecution had produced some pieces of burnt pipes but ashes were
not produced---Fire Brigade was called for extinguishing the fire but no fireman or their officer was examined before
the Trial Court---Prosecution case was not free from doubt---Benefit of doubt went in favour of the accused---Appeal
was allowed, in circumstances.
Syed MEHROZ MEHDI ZAIDI alias MEHDI BADSHAH VS State
Ss. 4/5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 6(2)(ee)---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 164 & 364---Recovery of explosive substance, firearms and terrorism---
Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement---Mandatory requirements, non-compliance of---Benefit of
doubt---Accused was convicted by Trial Court on the basis of his confessional statement recorded during
investigation---Magistrate while recording confessional statement of accused failed to discharge his duty in
accordance with law and did not put relevant questions to accused to ascertain that the confession was voluntarily,
true and without any inducement---Such confession lost its evidentiary value---High Court extended benefit of doubt
to accused, set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was
allowed, in circumstances.
WALI MUHAMMAD VS State
13 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 4(b) & 7---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(1)(ff) & 6(2)(ee)---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Ss. 23(1)(a) &
24---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Attempt to cause explosion or for making or keeping explosive
with intent to endanger life or property, restriction on trial of offence, usage of explosives by any device including
bomb blast or having any explosive substance without any lawful justification, possession of firearm and
ammunition---Examination of accused---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused persons were found to be
in possession of the explosive substances and firearms, for that they were booked and reported upon by the
police---Prosecutor contended that no question with regard to the reports of ballistic/forensic expert were put to any
of the accused during the course of their examination under S.342, Cr.P.C.; that such omission could not be
overlooked, that record did not speak of availability of the sanction/consent of the Provincial Government which was
necessary for such proceedings in terms of S.7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and that case be remanded for
re-writing of the judgment by the Trial Court---Validity---Impugned judgment was set aside with direction to the Trial
Court to rewrite the judgment after curing the defects which were pointed out by the prosecution and by providing
the chance of hearing to all the concerned---Appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Citation Name: 2020 YLRN 29 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
ABDUL QADIR VS State
S. 498-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 365-A, 452, 114, 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)---Qatl-
i-amd, kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., house-tresspass after preparation for
hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, abettor present when offence is committed, punishment for rioting, rioting armed
with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism, and haraabah---Bail, refusal of---Applicants/accused
belonging to police department sought bail in the FIR lodged against them for killing the son of complainant at the
instance of one of the accused persons---Applicants/accused contended that the deceased was killed in encounter
with the police; they had been declared innocent during investigations and the Investigating Officers had
recommended the case for its disposal under "B" class---Senior Superintendent of Police who conducted the inquiry
had found the alleged encounter as "fake" and Trial Court after trial had also acquitted the accused of the
encounter---Essential requirements for grant of pre arrest bail were lacking in the case---Mere recommendation for
disposal of the case under cancel class was not sufficient for extraordinary relief of pre arrest bail, in view of the fact
that all the applicants/accused were police officials---Sufficient material was available on the record to connect the
applicants with the commission of alleged offence falling within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.----
Application was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 14 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
HASSAN VS State
14 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 365-A, 215 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property,
valuable security etc., causing disappearance of evidence of offence, common intention, acts of terrorism---
Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged for committing abduction of nephew of
complainant for ransom---Record showed that initially the complainant nominated two persons when the
complainant and his nephew rushed at the place where he was called on phone to come along with ransom amount
for release of the abductee, they identified accused and saw them having T.T. pistols---Complainant also found his
nephew abductee on motorcycle with them---Subsequently, complainant in his further statement however,
complainant had implicated accused-appellants---Other nephew of complainant/witness also implicated said
accused-appellants in his further statements---Record reflected that both the said witnesses were not eye-witnesses
of the incident---Said witnesses had not furnished any source during further statement or before the Trial Court---
Star witness of the incident was the alleged abductee who was recovered by the police as stated by Investigating
Officer on 21.05.2013 while he was on patrolling duty---Abductee had identified the said persons, who boarded him
on their motorcycle by saying that his brother had called him---On the last day of his confinement, co-accused had
disclosed him that he had received the ransom amount from his parents and he would be freed---Later on abductee
was brought at an abandoned place where accused left him after folding his eyes and issued threats for dire
consequences, if he unfolded his eyes---Abductee had further stated that after some time police came there and
brought him at police station---Police informed his parents and handed over his custody to the parents---Police
recorded the statement of abductee and also produced him before Magistrate for recording his statement under S.
164, Cr.P.C.---Identification parade was held before the Magistrate and abductee identified the accused-
appellants---Abductee admitted in cross-examination that he had given the names of accused on the instance of his
brother---Abductee had stated that at the time of conducting the identification parade of accused persons only the
accused were present and no other person was with them---Abductee had not given the names of co-accused as
well as main accused in his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.--- Further statement of complainant recorded after
2-1/2 months of recovery of abductee could not be taken into consideration when the complainant in his FIR had
specifically nominated accused persons duly armed with T.T. pistol along with abductee whose hands and feet were
tied---Alleged abductee in his evidence had disclosed that he was informed by the accused persons that they had
received the ransom amount from his parents but that piece of evidence was not supported by any of the witnesses
during their evidence as to whether they had paid ransom amount or not---Admittedly, the incident was un-seen---
Complainant and his nephew/witness were not eye witnesses of the incident---Evidence of the abductee remained
in field, but his evidence was contradictory, which was dubious---Document produced by the accused-appellants in
their statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. regarding their confinement prior to arrest falsified the version of prosecution---
Defence witness was not shattered by the prosecution---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to
establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside
conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2020 MLD 437 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
REHMAT JAN VS WALI UR REHMAN
15 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S.302/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Murder due to family dispute, common intention---
Scope---Act of terrorism---Scope---Complainant sought insertion of Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the
FIR---Earlier, Division Bench of the High Court had, after hearing both the parties, allowed the criminal revision
petition of accused and transmitted his case to the Sessions Judge for further proceedings by holding that Anti-
Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction in the case of accused---Validity---FIR was lodged against unknown persons and
the present accused persons were arrested later on during investigation---Investigation revealed that due to some
family dispute accused persons had committed murder of the deceased and accordingly the case was registered by
police under ordinary law and remand of the accused was also obtained from the court of Judicial Magistrate---
Section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not attract to the case---Division Bench had rightly directed the police
officials to delete Ss. 6 & 7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 from the case of accused, which was inserted later on in the
case on the direction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Writ petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed.
Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 131 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
NAEEM ULLAH VS State
S. 498---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 21-D---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd,
common intention---Act of terrorism---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Non-availability of direct evidence---Further
inquiry---Scope---Contents of FIR revealed that one unknown person had allegedly opened fire on the deceased
while he was offering prayer---Complainant had expressed his suspicion that the petitioners, seeking pre-arrest bail,
might have murdered the deceased---Widow and son of deceased had pointed towards another person as they had
seen him holding a pistol at the gate of the mosque---Investigating Officer had failed to collect any direct evidence
showing involvement of petitioners in the commission of alleged crime---Reasonable grounds for believing that the
petitioners were guilty of abetment in the commission of murder were not available on record---Matter required
further inquiry into the guilt of petitioners---Pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners was confirmed, in circumstances.
HAROON BIN TARIQ VS State
S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(1)(n) & 7---Qatl-i-amd, acts of terrorism---Reappraisal of
evidence---Conviction and sentence under S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 set aside while that under S. 302(b),
P.P.C. maintained---Stray bullet---Deceased not the intended target---Ocular account supported by forensic
evidence inescapably pointed upon the culpability of the accused in terms of the role assigned to him---Insofar as
conviction of accused under S. 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was concerned, misfortune, brought the deceased
police official in the line of fire; he was not the intended target of the assailants nor deputed at the crime scene to
perform any officially assigned task---No independent verification was available on record to establish that the
deceased directed himself to the assailants in order to disengage or overpower them and in the process received
fire shot during grappling them from a close blank---On the contrary, medical evidence contradicted the prosecution
case, as there was no blackening on the margins of solitary entry wound, therefore, possibility of a stray bullet could
not be viewed as entirely unrealistic, particularly in the presence of as many as sixteen (16) casings, secured from
the spot, unambiguously suggesting volley of fires---Death of deceased did not attract the mischief of S. 6(1)(n) of
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Consequently, conviction and sentence of accused under S. 7 of the Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 was set aside.
16 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

AKHMAT SHER VS State
Ss. 6, 7(a) & 21-L---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---
Convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, setting aside of---Personal dispute/ vendetta---Special jurisdiction
under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had been created to deal with situations enumerated in S. 6 thereof---Personal
pursuits and vendettas, carried out through violence fell outside the ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---In
the present case, both the deceased fell victim to a business rivalry and, thus, the accused persons were not
actuated by the designs contemplated under the said Act, therefore, their convictions under Ss. 7(a) & 21-L of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentences consequent thereupon were set aside, whereas the remainder of their
convictions as well as sentences were kept intact.
MUHAMMAD FAISAL ABBAS VS State
Ss. 302(b), 324 & 392---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7(a)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd,
robbery, act of "terrorism"---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Robbery with murder in a shop not
an act of "terrorism"---Predominant purpose behind the crime was robbery at gunpoint, which had no nexus with the
situations enumerated under S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Occurrence took place inside a shop impact
whereof though grievously devastating for the witnesses, however could not be said to have spilled over to the
public at large---In such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of accused under S. 7 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, was not sustainable and set aside accordingly---Consequently, penalty of death awarded to the
accused was altered into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name: 2019 PLD 40 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD NASEEM VS State
S. 6---"Act of terrorism"---Ascertainment---Whether an offence fell within the ambit of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,

1997, it was essential to have a glance over the allegations made in the FIR, material collected during investigation
and surrounding circumstances as well as the ingredients of "terrorism" as provided under Ss. 6 & 7 of the Act,
1997.
Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 297 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case
The STATE VS FAIZ MUHAMMAD alias FAIZULLAH
17 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(e) & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
417---Kidnapping for ransom---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Death of abductee---Forensic
evidence---Authorities assailed order passed by Trial Court under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. where accused were acquitted
of charge of murder of abductee after kidnapping---Authorities contested that extra-judicial confession of accused as
well as recovery of dead body of abductee upon pointing of accused were sufficient grounds for conviction---
Validity---Extra-judicial confession as well as confession of accused persons revealed discovery of new facts as well
as discovery of remains of abductee---Forensic Science Laboratory report received in negative had diminished
evidentiary value of both extra-judicial confession and confessional statement of accused---Such statements were
not recorded voluntarily, otherwise accused could have pointed out exact grave of deceased and discovered
remains which could have matched with blood relations---Case of prosecution was doubtful and Trial Court while
delivering order of acquittal had rightly extended benefits of such doubts in favour of accused and rightly they were
acquitted of the charge---Accused, after acquittal earned presumption of double innocence and acquittal orders
were not interfered with until and unless it was proved on record that same was perverse, contrary to record, fanciful
and not sustainable---High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Trial Court as same was neither
perverse, fanciful nor ridiculous or contrary to record rather same was based on proper appraisal of material
available on record---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD JAWAD HAMID VS Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF
Ss. 203, 204, 435 & 439---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Private complaint---Dismissal of complaint or
summoning of accused---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Orders of Anti-Terrorism Court
dismissing of complaint or summoning of the accused were amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
MUHAMMAD IDREES VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324---"Act of terrorism"---Scope---Private motive---Effect---
Accused was aggrieved of dismissal of his application whereby Trial Court declined to delete S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997---Validity---In order to attract provision of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, act complained of must have a serious
nexus with provision of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---To exercise jurisdiction under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
'design' or 'purpose' behind action coupled with mens rea to constitute offence of terrorism was sine qua non---Trial
Court had not taken it into consideration while deciding application of accused---Nothing was available on record to
show that life and liberty of large number of persons in village was put in danger because of firing of accused
party---In absence of solid and admissible evidence mere conjectures and surmises how strong might be, could not
substitute reality---Occurrence had taken place as a result of private motive between parties---High Court declared
addition of S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in FIR and submission of challan before Anti-Terrorism Court to be illegal
and without lawful authority---High Court directed Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer record of case to
court of ordinary jurisdiction for further proceedings in accordance with law--- Constitutional petition was allowed in
circumstances.
18 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MUHAMMAD PARYAL VS State
Ss. 302 & 384---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(k) & 7(h)---Qatl-i-amd, extortion, extortion of money or
property, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Motive was not proved---Effect---Prosecution had examined
nine witnesses, out of them eight witnesses had not supported the motive/demand of bhatta by the accused---Only
one eye-witness had supported the prosecution motive for demand of bhatta---Police Officer/witness, who was on
duty at police line, had stated in his cross-examination that being line officer of police line, he had not received any
such complaint against accused---Investigating Officer in cross-examination had admitted that he had not heard any
complaint of the accused in the past---Rest of the witnesses being Police Officials posted at police line had admitted
that previously no complaint was received against the accused regarding demand of bhatta---Prosecution eye-
witness had not been corroborated by any of the cited witnesses regarding demand of bhatta---Whether demand of
money was for the purpose of bhatta or otherwise, no evidence had been led by the prosecution during the course
of trial in that regard---Even the quantum of bhatta had not been disclosed by any of the witness---Prosecution had
failed to prove the motive, in circumstances, hence, real cause of occurrence remained shrouded in mystery.
19 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

property, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, modification of---Prosecution case was that
accused, a police constable, demanded bhatta from younger brother of complainant, on refusal, accused committed
his murder---Ocular testimony was furnished by the prosecution in the shape of statements of complainant and two
witnesses---Record showed that complainant was not eye-witness and only two persons were eye-witness of the
incident---One eye-witness had deposed that on the day of occurrence, he along with other eye-witness was talking
to deceased, accused came and demanded money from the deceased to which he replied that today he had no
money and he would pay on the next day---Harsh words were exchanged, accused angrily went to the police line
and then fired twice at deceased, who fell down on the ground and they shifted him to hospital but he died on the
way---Other eye-witness of the occurrence had also supported the version of said eye-witness---Record showed
that there had not been any serious challenge to presence of said private eye-witnesses at place of incident nor
there was any denial to claim of friendship of said witnesses with the deceased---Accused had also brought nothing
on record against eye-witnesses as well as complainant which could justify replacement of real culprit with
accused---Eye-witnesses were friends of deceased whose words were believed by complainant, hence, it did not
appear to be believable that both of them agreed in substitution of real culprits with innocent person/accused when
undeniably the incident was of day-light---Prosecution had examined Police Constable/witness, who was performing
his duty on the main gate of police line---In his evidence, said witness had deposed that on the day of incident, his
duty was on main gate of police line, accused was also assigned duty at main gate with him---Said witness had
stated that he went to sit in the guard room to check the mail, during that accused took his SMG rifle and
immediately fired at deceased, standing in front of the gate---Accused had fired two rounds, one hit on the right
chest and the other on the right cheek of the deceased, who fell down and other Police Officials came there,
apprehended the accused and recovered SMG from him---Said witness had supported the evidence of private eye-
witnesses and since the defence never denied murder of deceased in consequence of fires from SMG then it was
under obligation to explain otherwise the fact resulting into death of deceased by use of SMG, which was never
attempted by defence---Direct evidence of eye-witnesses, duly supported by other witnesses/Police Officials
showed that the availability of witnesses at the venue of occurrence at the relevant time was quite natural---
Witnesses had sufficiently explained the date, time and place of occurrence as well as each and every event of
occurrence in clear manner---Said witnesses had also explained the mode and manner of taking place of the
occurrence, qua the culpability of the accused---Multiple questions were asked to shatter the confidence of said
witnesses and also their presence at the scene of occurrence, but defence could not extract anything from both eye-
witnesses as well as other Police Officials and they remained constant on all material points---Record transpired that
there was no denial to arrest of the accused along with weapon, used in commission of the offence, which was also
a strong corroboration to ocular account---In the present case, ocular account of eye-witnesses was substantiated
by the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased---Prosecution never brought
any substantial evidence/ material on record to establish demand of bhatta---Mere use of word bhatta would never
justify punishment for offence under S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Prosecution had successfully proved its
case against accused through ocular account furnished by complainant and eye-witnesses, duly supported by
Investigating Officer and Police Officials as well as Medical Officer, hence conviction and sentence under S.302(b),
P.P.C. was maintained, however, conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Ss.6(2)(k) & 7(h) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 was set aside---Appeal was dismissed with said modification.
20 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

property, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime weapon, empties and other articles---
Reliance--- Scope--- Record transpired that Investigating Officer sent recovered crime weapon and empties to
Forensic Science Laboratory and report showed that crime empties were fired from the SMG, in question---Clothes
of deceased and blood-stained earth were sent to the Chemical Examiner, report of which was positive---Said
evidence showed that death of deceased was unnatural at the hands of accused.
NAZAR MUHAMMAD VS State
Ss. 6 & 23---Act of terrorism---Transfer of case---Robbery---Double murder---Accused were aggrieved of order

passed by Trial Court declining to transfer case to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Accused persons had
planned and robbed the deceased at his shop with firearms and robbery took place in broad daylight in bazaar
where members of public were present and when owner of shop resisted the robbery, he was shot in cold blood in
front of members of public---When other members of public tried to intervene, they were warned off by accused
persons, threatening them with pistols---Another person who tried to intervene was again shot dead in cold blood by
accused persons in front of public---While making their escape good, accused persons deliberately made aerial
firing in order to scare off and terrorize public and in particular, minority community to whom victims belonged---High
Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as same was based upon valid and sound reasons and
was in consonance with provisions of relevant law---Accused persons failed to point out any legal infirmity in same
as act of terrorism was carried out by accused persons during robbery, murders and aerial firing and same fell within
purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
ALLAHYAR VS JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NAUSHAHRO FEROZE
21 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 324, 379, 504, 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
commit qatl-i-amd, theft, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, rioting, rioting armed with deadly
weapons, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---"Terrorism"---Scope---Petition for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism
Court to ordinary criminal court, dismissal of---Petitioners contended that previous enmity existed between the
parties and there was compromise between the parties and complainant admitted the compromise and had no
objection for the transfer of present case to the ordinary court, enabling them to file application for compromise and
resolve their issue on permanent basis---FIR did not disclose enmity between the parties---Validity---Record showed
that motive of the incident was, prima facie, old blood-feud between the parties, which had always been considered
as one of the circumstances to bring a case out of scope of "terrorism"---Normally, in such like matter, the prime
object was always to settle personal score rather than creating a sense of terrorism---Question of jurisdiction was
not to be dependent upon consent or wish of a party but was to be decided/determined on defined criterion---Act of
compromise for promoting harmony between two parties was worth appreciating but that alone would never be
decisive for determining question of jurisdiction of Special Court---Record transpired that fact of old enmity/private
vendetta was deliberately concealed by complainant so as to give jurisdiction to special court, hence in such
eventuality no objection, given by complainant at such stage, might be taken as one of the circumstances for
determining jurisdiction---Exceptions defined for taking cognizance by special court even in existence of private
vendetta between parties, prima facie, were not available---First Information Reports lodged by the accused party
and compromise between the parties as well as place of incident and the manner in which the incident had
happened, showed that it was not a case of "terrorism"---Application was allowed accordingly.
ALLAHYAR VS JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NAUSHAHRO FEROZE
Ss. 6 & 12--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 173---Jurisdiction of Anti-terrorism court---Determination---
Scope---While deciding the issue of jurisdiction, courts were required to examine FIR, statements recorded under S.
161, Cr.P.C., mashirnamas and other documents available with the prosecution.
MAJID alias DODO VS State
22 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 561-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2),
148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life, rioting, unlawful
assembly, terrorism---Transfer of case to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Act of terrorism, motive and manner---
Effect--- Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court--- Scope--- First Information Report was registered against applicants,
and other accused, who were allegedly running gambling and narcotic dens in their neighbourhood which was
objected by complainant party---Accused in order to maintain their supremacy in the neighbourhood, formed
unlawful assembly and committed murder of one of the members of complainant party by causing him fire shots and
butt blows---Applicants/accused contended that both parties being neighbors had dispute between them, provisions
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not applicable---Complainant contended that applicants, along with others, had
committed an act of terrorism by creating insecurity amongst the people of neighbourhood by committing murder of
the deceased in a brutal manner---In determining the applicability of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the
claimed motive was not of much importance but it would be the design(manner) which the culprit chose to achieve
the object---If an offence was designed in such a manner that ultimate effect thereof would result in striking general
public or those intending to do a lawful act which the targeted person or persons did, then such offence would fall
within the mischief of S. 6(2) of Anti-Terrorism, 1997---Occurrence, in the present case, was not an act of sudden
reaction but a premeditated and preplanned act on the part of applicants and others---Manner in which the
applicants and others had acted prima facie was not to settle some personal score but seemed to leave a message
to people of neighbourhood, thereby conveying them lethal consequences in objecting their wrongful and unlawful
act---Such object, prima facie appeared from date, time and place the applicants and others had chosen for
committing the offence, which obviously created a sense of insecurity amongst the people of neighborhood or
society---Act on the part of applicants and others fell within the ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Judge
Anti-Terrorism Court was right to dismiss application of the applicants under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for
transfer of their case from his Court to court of ordinary jurisdiction for the trial---Criminal miscellaneous application
was dismissed accordingly.
MURAD ALI BANGALANI VS State
2007 YLR 1222, 2013 PCr.LJ 52, 2013 YLR 1135, 2014 PCr.LJ 1062, PLD 2000 Kar. 89, PLD 2000 Karachi 89, PLD
2016 SC 1,
Ss. 6(1)(b)(c), (2)(n)(m) & 23---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439---"Terrorism"---Application for transfer
of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Secluded area of offence---Accused were
aggrieved of order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, declining to transfer the case to court of ordinary jurisdiction---
Validity---No evidence was available to suggest that action was taken by accused with any design, intention and
mens rea of causing "terrorism"---Area of incident was a secluded area and it did not have impact of causing
intimidation, awe, fear and insecurity in public or society---No members of public were around to witness or even
hear the action---When police officials were confined in a room and were made to be photographed in the company
of ladies, such incident also took place in closed room---Actions against police were though of very serious nature
and were to be discouraged and dealt with iron hand as in effect such were the attacks on society as a whole, yet
such attacks could only be dealt with under the relevant and applicable law---Actions allegedly taken by accused
against police did not fall within the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Material/evidence did not meet the
requirements of S. 6(1)(b) or (c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court set aside the order passed by Anti-
Terrorism Court and the trial was transferred to criminal court of competent jurisdiction---Revision was allowed in
circumstances.
23 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM


DHANI BUX VS State
Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(2)(e)---Kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Identification parade was conducted belatedly and
containing discrepancies---Statement of complainant and other witnesses were totally contradictory in respect of
time, place of identification and procedure of identification---Judicial Magistrate categorically stated that he had not
asked any questions to the minors to test their competency for identification test parade---Memo of the identification
parade showed that at the time of identification there were only nine dummies amongst them, three accused
persons were mixed up, meaning thereby that the ratio of accused and dummies was only 1 : 3, which was far more
less than the required ratio---Accused was not identified by one of the witnesses---Another aspect requiring
consideration was that the accused persons were arrested on 30 October, 2006 and it had also come on the record
that the alleged abductees were produced in police station on 8th November, 2006---Such identification parade did
not improve the case of prosecution. [Para. 8 of the judgment]
DHANI BUX VS State
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in statement of witnesses---Effect---In the present case, there
were series of contradictions in the depositions of witnesses---Complainant had stated that the identification test
was done in the chamber of Judicial Magistrate after Jumma Prayer but the other witnesses including the Judicial
Magistrate and minors disclosed that the identification was done in the early hours of the day---Facts come on the
record through the complainant that the lady accused as well as co-accused were arrested from a place nearby a
college but the prosecution witness/husband of lady accused said that she was arrested from home---Such
contradictions were fatal to the prosecution case. [Para. 7 of the judgment]
DHANI BUX VS State
terrorism---Delay in lodging FIR---Effect---Inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which had not been plausibly explained
within the body of FIR---Such inordinate delay was fatal to the prosecution case. [Para. 6 of the judgment]
DHANI BUX VS State
24 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 365-A& 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(2)(e)---Kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged for kidnapping the sons of
complainant for ransom---Record showed that the alleged abductees had already reached home at the time of
lodging the FIR, but said fact was not mentioned in the same---Alleged payment of ransom was not mentioned in
FIR---Record transpired that the complainant and witnesses were not in agreement on vital point of their
statements---Complainant had deposed that he received information about the abduction of his children on
6.10.2006 just after the incident and he disclosed the same on 15.10.2006 but no report was lodged---Complainant
had stated that he had informed the police about the entire facts and police disclosed that they had arranged
Nakabandi, but no FIR was lodged---Complainant further stated that from the second day of abduction to onward,
they received series of telephone calls from the accused persons from a landline number but during investigation no
record of such phone calls was collected to establish said aspect of the assertion of the complainant---Complainant
had alleged that an amount of Rs. 535,000/- and some gold ornaments were handed over to the accused persons
through lady accused in civil hospital, but no recovery of ransom amount or gold ornaments was effected from any
of the accused persons---Complainant had deposed that at the time of delivery of ransom amount, husband of lady
accused and his brother also went to civil hospital along-with lady accused---Delivery of ransom amount was made
to the accused in the hospital while they were waiting outside and subsequently she disclosed that she had
delivered the bag containing amount and ornaments to a person aged about 24/25 years---Record showed that
Investigation Officer informed the complainant that the accused persons were in their custody and he took his
children firstly to police station and then to the court---Complainant and his children went to the court with police---
Both of them were fully tutored before the Trial Court and their evidence remained shaky on the vital points of their
depositions---One of the minors said that at the time of abduction lady accused opened the door of the car and sat
in with them but the other minor stated that she was not accompanying them in the car---One child stated that he
could not say as to for what purpose he had appeared in the court---Sole evidence of the minors could not be relied
and the same required corroboration and which was missing in the case---Prosecution failed in bringing the guilt of
the accused persons at home, in circumstances---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside
conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. [Paras. 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment]
ATTA MOHAMMAD VS State
25 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 353, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 &
7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault on public servant, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful
assembly, act of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Vicarious liability---Rule of consistency---Applicability---
Dying declaration--- Scope--- Complainant (police official) while patrolling with other police official stopped a
suspicious vehicle---Petitioner, along with four accused, alighted from the vehicle and main accused made firing on
complainants companion (Police official) who sustained injuries and later died---Petitioner contended that his case
fell under further inquiry as bail had already been granted to one of the co-accused with almost similar attribution---
Petitioner was behind the bars for the last two years---Petitioner though had been nominated in the FIR but neither
any specific role nor any overt act had been attributed to him except that he, having a pistol, alighted from the
vehicle along with the main accused (who made straight fire on the deceased)---Soon after the alleged incident,
injured police official was taken to the hospital where SHO concerned, in the presence of medical executive
recorded his dying declaration, wherein he categorically stated that main accused had fired at him directly and even
had not taken the name of the petitioner---Question of vicarious liability of the petitioner with regard to his common
intention for committing alleged offence would be determined at the trial---Tentative assessment of record called the
case of the petitioner as one of further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Record revealed that another
co-accused had been admitted to bail; said co-accused was identified by the witnesses during the identification
parade and Kalashinkov was allegedly recovered from his possession---Case of the petitioner was at par with the
said co-accused therefore, principle of consistency also applied in the case of petitioner, which demanded equal
treatment to the petitioner---Bail was granted to the petitioner, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2019 PLD 527 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD SIKANDAR VS State
S. 6(1)(b), (c) & (2)---"Act of terrorism"---Mens rea and actus reus---Essential ingredients---Essential ingredients
relating to mens rea and actus reus explicitly mentioned in S.6(1)(b) or (c) and S.6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
respectively must coexist and coincide.
S. 6---"Act of terrorism"---Connotation---No matter how gruesome, violent or heinous an act or commission of

offense may be, it would not constitute an "act of terrorism" within its meaning contemplated under Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 unless mens rea and actus reus explicitly mentioned therein coincides and coexists.
26 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 25---Act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Causing terror---Proof---Accused was convicted and

sentenced in committing acts of terrorism by using his family as human shields while deadlocking main road in
federal capital armed with automatic weapons and ammunition---Accused assailed conviction and sentence passed
by Trial Court on grounds that his actions did not constitute terrorism---Validity---Offence of terrorism was constituted
as design was to create psychological impact of creating a sense of fear and insecurity relatable to general public,
society or a section thereof---Offences mentioned in schedule must have nexus with object of statute and
contemplated under Ss.6 to 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---For offence of terrorism to be constituted it was not
necessary that victims were actually harmed or that terror was caused; it was sufficient if design of intended act was
likely to create terror, a sense of fear and insecurity amongst general public, society or section thereof---Mens rea
and actus reus contemplated in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 coexisted, in the present case---High Court declined to
interfere in conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court as prosecution had proved charge against accused
beyond reasonable doubt and that there were no mitigating circumstances for handing down a lesser sentence---
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
HAROON RASHID VS FOP through Secretary, Ministry of Interior
Ss. 2(1)(a), 4 & 8 & Sched.---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Extradition to foreign country/non-treaty
State---Terrorism---Schedule to the Extradition Act, 1972, did not contain the term terrorism, thus the same was not
an extradition offence---His Lordship observed that the term terrorism should be specified in the Schedule to the
Extradition Act, 1972---Constitutional petition was disposed of.
Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2445 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL VS State
S.302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, terrorism Diyat, payment of, to the victims of
terrorism--- Petitioner sought implementation of order passed by Trial Court, upheld by Supreme Appellate Court,
whereby it had directed the State to pay diyat amount to the legal heirs of victims---Trial Court dismissed the petition
on the ground that as a uniform policy Provincial Government had paid Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the legal
heirs of all the families who were victims of violence and terrorism and lost their lives---Validity---Case was not
untraced one---One accused had stood trial and was acquitted--- Provincial Government having paid a sum of Rs.
3,00,000 each to the legal heirs of all the families, whose nears and dears had lost their lives in the violence of
terrorism---Petition was dismissed.
EHSANULLAH VS State
27 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 427 & 34---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
164---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, common intention, act of terrorism---
Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement---Scope---Prosecution case was that some unknown terrorists
murdered the deceased and his vehicle was found in damaged condition along with his dead body---Killing of the
deceased was a result of "terrorism"---Record showed that senior police officer had recorded the confessional
statement of accused persons---Said confessional statements of the accused persons transpired that the same
were voluntary, which were corroborated by recovery of weapons of offence, autopsy report, report of arms expert
and their extra judicial confessional statements---Senior police officer had appeared as witness, who recorded
confessional statements of the accused after fulfilling codal and legal formalities, and his statement could not be
shattered by defence in his cross-examination---Medico legal report of the deceased supported the prosecution
version---Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt
against the accused and his co-accused, so far as the other co-accused was concerned, no overt act of effective
firing was attributed to him by the prosecution witnesses in their statements and neither any weapon of offence nor
any other incriminating material had been recovered from his possession nor on his pointation---Appeal against
accused and co-accused was dismissed, in circumstances while other co-accused was acquitted by setting aside
conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
EHSANULLAH VS State
Ss. 302, 427 & 34---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the
amount of fifty rupees, common intention, act of terrorism---Prosecution case was that some unknown terrorists
murdered the deceased and his vehicle was found in damaged condition along with his dead body---Appreciation of
evidence---Recovery of weapons of offence from accused and empty shells---Reliance---Scope---Record showed
that one .30-bore pistol/weapon of offence was recovered by police on the pointation of the accused in presence of
marginal witnesses---Another 30-bore pistol was recovered by police on the pointation of co-accused in presence of
marginal witnesses---Police had recovered one empty shell and one pellet of .30-bore pistol from the damaged
vehicle of the deceased in presence of witnesses---Police had also recovered one empty shell of .30-bore pistol
from the place of occurrence---Record transpired that weapons of offence, empty shells and sika goli of .30-bore
pistols were sent by the prosecution to National Forensic Science Arms for analysis and expert opinion---Report of
expert being positive supported the prosecution version.
Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1310 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
SHER KHAN VS State
S. 497---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 427, 457 & 34---Act of
terrorism, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, lurking house trespass or house-breaking by night
in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Crime against
society---Girls Primary School was burnt into ashes by unidentified accused persons---Petitioners (three in number)
were neither nominated in the FIR nor any incriminating material evidence was available on record---Record
revealed that petitioners were hardened criminals and their acts of burning the school had maligned the country at
international level---Offence committed by the petitioners was an offence against the society---Chief Court observed
that such type of hardened and desperate criminals could not and should not be let loose on the society---Bail was
refused to the petitioners, in circumstances.
28 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

SHOAIB AHMAD VS State
2007 PCr.LJ 1011, PLD 2006 Kar. 331,
Ss. 302, 364-A, 377 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 32---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance
(XXII of 2000), S.14---SRO No.572(I)/2012, dated 3-5-2012---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person under
age of fourteen, sodomy, common intention, act of terrorism---Trial by Anti-Terrorism Court---Accused persons,
raised the objection that they being minors, their trial by Anti-Terrorism Court was coram non judice and they were to
be tried under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and that case was not that of terrorism, but that of murder
and was to be tried by the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Contentions of counsel for accused persons were wholly
misconceived, as offence committed by minors could validly be tried by Anti-Terrorism Court as S.32 of Juvenile
Justice System Ordinance, 2000 had provided that the said provision was in addition to and not in derogation of any
other law---Contention that the trial of accused persons was coram non judice did not hold the field, thus repelled---
Objection that case of accused persons was that of murder, therefore, was to be tried by the court of ordinary
jurisdiction, was without foundation as notification SRO No. 572(I)/2012, dated 30-5-2012, had conferred the powers
of Juvenile Court to the Judge, Anti-terrorism Court.
PLD 1998 SC 1445,
S. 6---Procedure of Juvenile Court---Interpretation, applicability and scope of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Section
6 of the Act defines the offences falling in the category of "Terrorism"---Provisos to said section had shown that the
section was divided into two main parts; the first part contained in S.6(1)(h) and (c) of the Act, deals with the mens
rea and makes a mention of the "design" or the "purpose" behind an action and the second part falling in S.6(2) of
the Act specifies that the action taken when coupled with the mens rea, would constitute an offence---Critical study
of S.6(2) of the Act, depicts that the intention of legislature was very clear---If use of threat or action would create
serious risk to the safety of the public or section of public; the same was designed to frighten general public and
thereby prevented them from coming out and carry out their ordinary pursuit business, lawful trade, daily business
or disrupted the civil life or tempo of life, same would definitely fall within the definition of "terrorism".
29 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 364-A, 377 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a
person under age of fourteen, sodomy, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Crime detected through
CCTV footage and accused was arrested, who disclosed the fact of burying the dead body of the deceased in a
cave; which was later on recovered on the pointation of accused in the presence of marginal witness---Post-mortem
on the dead body was conducted on the same day---Injuries on the person of the deceased, were sufficient to cause
death and the time which elapsed between death and postmortem was more than 24 hours, which also coincided
with the time of disappearance of the deceased child---Both the prosecution witnesses remained un-shattered
despite lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination---After the amendment knocked in Art.164, Qanun-e-Shahadat,
evidence procured through modern devices, was admissible in evidence---Last seen evidence was available in the
shape of CCTV footage and it had also come on record that deceased was never seen alive till his dead body was
recovered on the pointation of accused---Statement of prosecution witness, who was uncle of deceased, was also in
line with the statement of other prosecution witness and both the statements were consistent on all material
particulars---Weapon of offence (knife) recovered on the pointation of accused was sent to Chemical Examiner and
the report was positive---One blood-stained stone was also recovered from the place of occurrence on the
pointation of accused---Chemical Examiner also confirmed that the blood-stains present on the last worn clothes of
the deceased and the one present on the stone, were of the same group---Site plan prepared by Investigating
Officer and exhibited in court, was admissible in evidence---Case of accused, was not a case of kidnapping or
abduction as on offer to purchase some fire crackers, the deceased himself willingly accompanied accused persons;
it could not be said that deceased was either kidnapped or abducted as per mandate of S. 364-A, P.P.C.---Police
report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C., showed the motive of murder was that prior to the incident, accused were
committing sodomy with the deceased---Motive of murder and such statement had not been challenged either
way---Conviction under S.377, P.P.C., was valid and maintained---Conviction of accused under S.302, P.P.C., read
with Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was maintained and murder reference was answered in affirmative.
2003 PCr.LJ 2021, 2007 PCr.LJ 1011, PLD 2004 SC 342, PLD 2006 Kar. 331,
Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---
Appeal for enhancement of sentence---Conversion of appeal into revision---Main accused was convicted and
sentenced to death while two co-accused were awarded life imprisonment---Main accused had injured the deceased
in a barbaric manner; two co-accused remained on guard and facilitated in the accomplishment of the task---
Accused persons were not suffering from lack of maturity while committing the said brutality nor were unaware of
the consequences---Where the circumstances justified that accused persons had acted prudently although in a
perverse manner, neither juvenility nor the young age of accused would come to rescue them from the harshest
penalty which could be given in such like cases---Accused persons were rightly convicted and sentenced; however,
the age of two co-accused had been shown 13 years each respectively, their sentence of life imprisonment could
not be enhanced to death---Young age in heinous offences was always not considered a decisive factor and the
quantum of sentence would vary from case to case---Appeal was converted into revision and was dismissed, in
circumstances.
State VS IMRAN HUSSAIN
30 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 324, 114 & 34---Anti -Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 21-L---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S.417---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence was committed, common intention, act of
terrorism---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that some unknown
persons/culprits opened fire on the brother of complainant, which hit his face---Accused persons were acquitted by
the Trial Court, whereas proclaimed offender was convicted under S. 21-L of the Anti Terrorism Act,
1997---Admittedly accused-respondents were not directly charged in the FIR rather it was registered against
unknown culprits, despite the fact that the occurrence took place in the bazaar at day time as evident from the
contents of FIR---No eyewitness had witnessed the occurrence and no weapon of offence had been recovered from
the possession of the accused persons or on their pointation---Identification parade of the accused persons was not
held after their arrest---In the present case, prosecution had produced confessional statements of the accused
persons recorded by a police officer, but said statements were retracted by the accused persons---Possibility could
not be ruled out that the confessional statements recorded by the police officer were tutored one, hence the same
had no evidentiary value---Appeal against acquittal having no material was dismissed, in circumstances.
SADDAM VS State
Ss. 395 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 21-H---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
164---Dacoity, common intention, act of terrorism---Confessional statement of accused---Procedure---Accused must
be produced before a Judicial Magistrate for recording his confessional statement---Statement under S.21-H of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, howsoever transparent, could not be a substitute of confessional statement recorded
under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Confessional statement recorded under S.21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was always
treated as suspected piece of evidence, until and unless it was shown by the prosecution that there were some
compelling circumstances which were beyond the control of the Investigating Agency to produce the accused before
a judicial Magistrate---No such compelling circumstances had been stated by the prosecution---Confessional
statement of the accused recorded under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was of no consequence, in
circumstances.
SADDAM VS State
Ss. 395 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Dacoity, common intention, act of terrorism---
Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that accused along with his co-accused
equipped with weapons broke into the check post with rope and looted official weapons and other articles on
gunpoint---Record showed that none of the witness of the ocular account had stated a single word about the
involvement of the accused nor identified him either in any identification parade or even in the trial court---
Circumstantial evidence was also not worth reliance---No recovery had been effected on the pointation of the
accused---Confessional statement of the accused was recorded by the Police Officer, which was not admissible in
evidence---Circumstances established that no evidence worth reliance was available against the accused and all the
evidence produced by the prosecution were defective---Appeal was accepted and accused was acquitted from the
charges, in circumstances.
31 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MUHAMMAD QAYUM KHAN VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 120-B, 123-A, 124-A & 153-B---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 &
7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Criminal conspiracy, condemnation of the creation of the State
and advocacy of abolition of its sovereignty, sedition, inducing students, etc. to take part in political activity, act of
terrorism, possessing unlicensed weapons---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against the accused-petitioners was that
they were members of anti-State organization, got subversive books/material containing anti-State and hatred
material against the State and integrity of the country---Material collected during investigation, prima facie
suggested that accused-petitioners were active members of an anti-state organization---In order to constitute a
prima facie case against them, it was not necessary as to what part had been played by each of them and who was
the principal offender and who was offender of lesser degree---Determination of degree of offence would tantamount
to prejudice their case at that stage, when their trial had yet to take place---No ill-will or malice was attributed by the
accused-petitioners against the Investigating Agencies---Act of the accused-petitioners fell within the definition of
FITNA, which had been termed graver offence than murder---Accused-petitioners advertently wanted to crucify the
interest of State at the altar of personal gains and did not deserve any concession---Bail petitions were dismissed in
circumstances.
JAWAHIR KHAN VS State
32 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 324, 353, 454, 500, 506(2) & 337-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, lurking house trespass
or house breaking in order to commit offence, defamation, criminal intimidation, causing shajjah, act of terrorism---
Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that the accused had demanded installation of special line in his
house from Shift Incharge of Public Works Department and on refusal by the said Incharge he hurled threats and
abused him and thereafter entered into the substation, made firing due to which, one person died and complainant
sustained injury on middle finger of his right hand---Accused was arrested red-handed and two pistols were taken
into custody by the police---Scribe of FIR in the present case, who was also injured, rendered ocular account of the
incident---Material aspects of said Scribe's testimony was further augmented by the account of occurrence rendered
by two witnesses---All the witnesses were eye-witnesses and the sequence in which the occurrence had taken
place, had been meticulously brought on record by the said witnesses---Even the colour of clothes worn by the
assailant had been told by the person lodging the FIR---Injured witness had lucidly explained the occurrence, visit of
the accused to the place of occurrence, his demand of installation of special line, refusal of deceased, hurling of
threats and abuses by the accused, his arrival after a few minutes having pistols in both hands discriminate firing
over the witnesses, arrival of police and arrest of accused with the weapon of offence, was a common stance in the
testimony of all the eye-witnesses including the injured one---Presence of witnesses on the spot, the opening of fire
shots, witnesses receiving injuries and arrival of police had not only been established by the prosecution but by
defence as well---Questions posed in cross-examination by the defence had reconfirmed the entire occurrence---
Statement of another eye-witness was also in line with the rest of the eye-witnesses---During the cross-examination,
said witness had stated that due to fear the people were running outside and only the Police personnel entered into
the substation---Said particular statement portrayed the exact picture of what generally happened in such like
situation---Witnesses, who rendered the ocular account being employees of the substation where the incident had
taken place, were the most natural witnesses---Medical evidence ended up with the conclusion that fatal gunshot
injury to vital organs heart and lungs, and cardio-vascular collapse worked in tandem to make the person breath his
last---Accused was arrested on the spot and Investigating Officer took both the pistols in custody---SHO confirmed
with respect to the call made by deceased and deputation of Police officials was yet another circumstance which
added to the credibility of the sequence of events which had taken place on the relevant day and was sufficient to
discard even a remote suspicion that said set of evidence was either a manipulated one or was carved by the
prosecution---Evidence of marginal witness to the recovery of pistols lend credence to the ocular account furnished
by the witnesses---Circumstances established that accused let loose a wave of savagery, took the life of deceased
who died in harness and made a motivated and determined attempt at the life of rest for a frail motive which in all
probabilities was quite incapable of generating such inhuman reaction---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD ABBAS VS State
S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd and
terrorism---Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to death on six counts, which was affirmed by High
Court---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court in order to reappraise the evidence.
33 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302(b) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd and terrorism--- Mitigating
circumstances--- Common intention---Quantum of sentence---Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to
death on six counts, and the same was affirmed by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that there were
mitigating circumstances available towards reduction of sentence---Validity---No eye-witness had deposed that
accused had actually fired at any of the deceased or caused any injury to any person---Extra-judicial confession
attributed to co-accused confirmed such aspect of the matter as according to the same, accused merely
accompanied his co-accused to the place of occurrence and remained present with motorcycle at the spot and had
not caused any injury to any person during the incident in issue---Although a firearm was allegedly recovered from
custody of the accused during investigation yet the firearm never stood connected with alleged offence---Accused
was arrested way back in year 1997, and he remained behind the bars ever since---In terms of role attributed to
accused, he did not deserve maximum sentence provided for the offence in question---Supreme Court altered
sentence of death on six counts to imprisonment for life on six counts and also reduced amount of fine and
compensations awarded to accused.
Ss. 63, 65 & 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 544-
A---Qatl-i-amd and terrorism---Fine and compensation---Quantum---Imprisonment in lieu of fine and compensation---
Scope---Fine and compensation to legal heirs of deceased persons were also imposed upon the accused and in
case of non-payment he was to undergo imprisonment---Validity---Fines imposed upon accused on each of the
relevant counts were excessive and even sentences of imprisonment to be undergone in default of payment of fine
were on the higher side---Order passed by Trial Court regarding payment of compensation by accused to heirs of
each deceased was inappropriate and warranted interference---Supreme Court reduced amounts of fine and
compensation each to Rs.50000/- on six counts or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
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.
34 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

PLD 1998 SC 1445,
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.
Ss. 6 & 23---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Scope---Personal enmity
over property---Admittedly there was a dispute of a plot where the occurrence took place---Prosecution's own case
was that the complainant had filed a civil suit and on his application for initiation of contempt proceedings against
the accused persons, a bailiff of the Court was appointed---Application of contempt of court and appointment of
bailiff triggered the enmity which resulted in the present occurrence---Allegedly five persons fired specifically at
complainant's wife (deceased) hitting on her legs, but till that time there was no allegation of creating terror and
insecurity in the general public---Subsequently, it was alleged that 26 persons, in order to create terror and
insecurity in the general public, made indiscriminate firing, but, such allegation was not supported from any source
as neither any crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence nor anybody else received even a scratch
on his person due to said indiscriminate firing---Due to the alleged indiscriminate firing not a single bullet hit on the
walls of the plot in question which were 2.3 feet high---Furthermore, according to the complainant party, two police
constables, who were guarding the complainant, were present at the place of occurrence, but it was not alleged by
the prosecution that they were restrained by the accused persons to discharge their duties or anybody fired upon
them or threatened them---Bailiff of the court and police constables, never claimed that they were fired at or they
were threatened by the accused persons, instead they were subsequently introduced as accused persons in the
case for abatement---Perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR, the material so collected by the investigating
officer and other surrounding circumstances of the case, showed that the present case was not triable under the
provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
MUHAMMAD SADIQ VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-II, QUETTA
35 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 392, 511, 353, 337-A, 337-D, 186, 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Robbery,
attempting to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life or a shorter term, assault or criminal force to
deter public servant from discharge of his duty, shajjah, jaifah, obstructing public servant in discharge of public
functions, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---Dismissal of petition for
transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary criminal court---Petitioners contended that provisions of S.6 of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not attracted in the case and offences mentioned in the FIR had no nexus with the
definition of said section of the Act---Validity---Prosecution case was that petitioners committed offences on the main
road, target was Security Force Officers---During scuffle, officials sustained injuries and petitioners tried to snatch
official weapons from Security Force personnel---Petitioners were overpowered and Security Force personnel
recovered different types of weapons and rounds from the possession of petitioners---Act of the petitioners on the
main road created fear and insecurity to the general public---Act of the petitioners apparently involved serious
violence against the members of the law enforcing agency, as such, case prima facie fell under S.6(m) and (n) of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti Terrorism Court therefore, had exclusive jurisdiction to try the case---Constitutional
petition was dismissed in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD SADIQ VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-II, QUETTA
Ss. 6 & 12---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.173---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Determination---

Anti-Terrorism Court, for taking cognizance and conducting trial of offences was to see that on what basis
allegations were made in the FIR; that what was the material collected during investigation and surrounding
circumstances; that whether alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case; that particular act was act of
terrorism or not; that there existed motivation, object, deign and purpose behind the act; that act had created fear
and insecurity in the public or in a section of public or community or in any sect; that act had created fear, panic,
sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in the particular area---All said ingredients
amounted to terror and as such fell within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and would be triable by
Anti-Terrorism Court.
ABDUL REHMAN alias LALO VS Mst. SHANI QAYYUM
PLD 2016 SC 195,
Ss. 302, 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with
deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---Dismissal of petition for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism
Court to an ordinary criminal court---Petitioners contended that impugned order was against law and facts and
provisions of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not attracted in the case---Validity---Complainant of the FIR had
specifically stated that her daughter was murdered in the name of honour killing by the petitioners---Record showed
that ingredients of S. 6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not attracted in the present case---Petition was allowed by
setting aside order passed by the Trial Court and case was transferred to the court of ordinary jurisdiction.
36 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

ABDUL REHMAN alias LALO VS Mst. SHANI QAYYUM
Ss. 6 & 12--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 173---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court--- Determination---
Scope---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court for taking cognizance and conducting trial of offences was to be initially
determined on the basis of material collected during investigation and surrounding circumstances---Court was to see
that ingredients of alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case; that particular act was act of terrorism
or not; that there existed motivation, object, design and purpose behind the act; that act had created sense of fear
and insecurity in the public or in a section of public or community or in any sect; and that act had created fear, panic,
sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in the particular area---All said ingredients
amounted to "terror" and as such fell within the ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and would be triable by
Anti-Terrorism Court.
Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 169 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case
AMAN ULLAH VS MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ
S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable
security etc., act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that on 30.8.2012
four persons made brother of complainant to sit in the car and then drove away---Complainant could not know the
purpose for which his brother went with the said persons---Complainant could not guess whether his brother on his
own went with the four persons or he was forced to go with them---Complainant entreated that his brother be traced
out and recovered---On 25.10.2012, the abductee appeared before the local police and charged the accused
persons for his abduction for ransom---Record showed that the abductee was recovered on 6.10.2012 till
25.10.2012 but neither he nor complainant reported to the local police about his release from the captivity---
Charging the accused at a belated stage was fatal to the prosecution---Plausible explanation had not been given for
the delay caused in implicating the accused, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses---Record transpired that accused was identified through identification parade by the witness
on 22.11.2012 and prior to holding the identification parade, accused were produced before the Trial Court on
1.11.2012 and the possibility of their showing to the identifier could not be ruled out---Identifier did not point out the
specific role played by the accused in the crime---No importance could be attached to the identification parade in
such circumstances---Prosecution had relied upon the ransom amount recovered from the accused persons but
witness had not named any specific accused to whom he had paid the ransom---Alleged recovery of ransom
amount paid, was recovered on the pointation of accused on 31.10.2012, statedly having been buried in ground by
the accused---Such fact did not appeal to mind as no person would ever bury currency notes in ground---On the
basis of same set of evidence, Trial Court had acquitted co-accused persons, against which neither the complainant
nor the State had filed any appeal---No significant difference in the roles of all the accused was available, therefore,
acquittal of the co-accused persons and its non-challenging had caused colossal damage to the prosecution---
Prosecution had not proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, benefit of which, would
resolve in favour of accused---Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence
recorded by the Trial Court.
Citation Name: 2018 PLD 1 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD AYAZ VS SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL, TIMERGARA, DISTRICT LOWER DIR
PLD 1975 SC 506,
37 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 59(1)(a)---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(ee) &
7(1)(ff)---Designing vehicle for a terrorist act, attacking law enforcement agencies, possessing firearm and
explosives---Quantum of sentence awarded by Field General Court Martial---Scope---Bare reading of S.59(1)(a) of
the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 clearly revealed that the quantum of sentence that could be awarded by a Military
Court could not go beyond that prescribed for the said offence under the ordinary penal laws enforced in Pakistan---
Accused (a civilian) was awarded the death sentence by Field General Court Martial---Two striking features of the
present case were that; firstly, the accused was not charged for the death of any person; and secondly he was not
charged for actually causing an explosion---Charge against the accused was not for the act of causing an
explosion---In fact, accused was charged for planting an explosive device, which act could fall under the offences
provided under Ss. 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which at best carried maximum punishment for life
and not death---Punishment for offence involving use of explosive by any device given under S.7(1)(ff) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 also provided a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life but not death---Death sentence
awarded to the accused by the Military Court warranted interference by the High Court in its Constitutional
jurisdiction, as the Military Court lacked legal jurisdiction to award death penalty for the charges framed upon the
accused---Sentence of death awarded to accused and the confirmation thereof passed by the Chief of Army Staff
was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Military Court either to revisit the quantum of punishment
awarded or to alter the charge framed against the accused and thereafter proceed against him under the law---
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 188 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
JALIL AHMED KHAN VS State
Ss. 6 & 7---Act of terrorism---Petitioner in a constitutional petition sought direction to the SHO to invoke provisions of
S.6 of the Anti-Terrorisim Act, 1997---Petitioner had alleged that respondents accompanied by eight unknown
persons, variously armed, encircled their vehicle, opened indiscriminate fire, in daylight, at a thoroughfare, resulting
into injuries to a passerby---Such act of respondents was not only struck terror but was also capable of creating a
sense of fear and insecurity amongst the public at large, thus was squarely cognizable under S.6 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity---Record showed that respondents lodged a case of homicide against the petitioner
and his brothers and that he along with prosecution witnesses was on way to attend proceedings therein, when they
came under assault---Motive cited in the crime report was a reference to yet another murder case wherein
complainant's younger brother was allegedly murdered by the respondents---Conclusion, in such a situation, could
be that alleged assault was not for the achievement of purpose contemplated by the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Mere
incidence of crime at public place, ipso facto would not bring the event within the mischief of S.6 of the said Act---
Case was still at the investigative stage and High Court could not interfere with investigative processes in exercise
of its Constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Nawab SIRAJ ALI VS State
38 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7 & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345 (2)---"Act of terrorism"---Appreciation of evidence---
Compounding of offence---Personal vendetta---Effect---Plea raised by accused persons was that any act done
under personal vendetta was not an "act of terrorism"---Validity---Motive concluded by Trial Court was personal
vendetta and essential element of creating terrorism in public was never established nor attempted---Case prima
facie fell in the category of cases not liable to be tried by Special Court---As there was personal vendetta, provision
of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was misapplied by police as well cognizance and trial was not proper---High
Court set aside judgment passed by Special Court and remanded the case to Sessions Court for de novo trial and
that Court would be competent to decide application for compromise within the four corners of law---Appeal was
allowed accordingly.
SIRAJ VS State
Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 353, 186---Explosive Substances Act (V of 1908), Ss.4 & 5---Sindh
Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23 (i)(a)---Terrorism, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, recovery of weapon, use of explosive
substance---Police encounter---Proof---Appreciation of evidence---Accused persons were alleged to have committed
police encounter and they were convicted by Trial Court and sentenced variously maximum up to imprisonment for
fourteen years---Validity---Nobody received any injury from police side even no bullet was hit to police mobile during
the encounter---Trial Court was silent in judgment with regard to police encounter, therefore, S.7 of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 was misapplied---High Court set aside conviction and sentence to the extent of S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 awarded to accused persons---Recovery of alleged articles from possession of accused persons though were
independent offenses and as S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was wrongly applied, sentence awarded to accused
persons with regard to recovery of articles was reduced to one which they had undergone---High Court maintained
conviction but reduced sentence to one which accused had already undergone and fines imposed were also
remitted---Appeals were dismissed in accordingly.
SIRAJ VS State
Ss.6 & 7---Act of terrorism---Proof---Applicability of S.7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Every section of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, has independent definition and punishment for offences---Prosecution is obliged to prove the same as
per requirement of law, besides proving allied offences---Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 has been applied,
therefore, it is to be seen whether before applying S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, requirement of S.6 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 has been fulfilled---Such aspect is to be seen with allegation on record and as to whether
material collected by investigating officer and surrounding circumstances depicted commission of offence and
whether a particular act is an act of terrorism or not---Motivation, object, design or purpose behind act has to be
seen.
MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS State
39 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6 & 7(h)--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 384 & 386--- Extortion, demanding Bhatta and aerial firing---
Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment
for five years--- Validity--- Trial Court could not have convicted and sentenced an accused for offense under S. 7(h)
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as mere firing in area for bhatta did not ipso facto bring case within purview of S. 6 of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 so as to brand action as terrorism--- Ingredients for extortion of money were not satisfied,
bhatta money, pistol and empties were not sealed at the spot---Overwriting was noticed in Mushirnama of arrest and
recovery without explanation by prosecution---Several circumstances existed which created reasonable doubt in the
case of prosecution---If a single circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about guilt of
accused, accused was entitled to benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right--- High
Court set aside conviction against accused by extending him benefit of doubt--- Accused was acquitted in
circumstances.
1990 SCMR 619, 1995 SCMR 1345, 2004 SCMR 331, 2012 YLR 498, PLD 2002 SC 62,
Ss. 302, 310-A & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, giving a female in marriage or
otherwise in badl-e-sulah, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen
offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the daughter of
complainant left his house with her paramour who returned his daughter after few days---Accused/appellants, who
were uncle and cousin of the complainant thereafter took the daughter of complainant to their house for some time
in order to avoid further disgrace---Complainant and his wife used to visit his daughter from time to time, at the
house of accused-appellants but on one such visit, she was not present in the house---Accused-appellants had
informed the complainant who had reached there with two witnesses, that she did not want to remain there and
wanted to go out of their house---Daughter of complainant was murdered by accused and buried in the ditch to
preserve the family honour---Record showed that complainant and his two relatives were the key prosecution
witnesses---Said witnesses in the FIR and in their statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. had stated that
accused-appellants had murdered the deceased but resiled before the Trial Court and refused to support the
prosecution case---Said witnesses stated that accused-appellants had told them that deceased had left their house,
they and other relatives searched for her and came to know that her dead body was buried near the graveyard---
Witnesses denied that they had changed their evidence due to compromise, threat, inducement or for any other
reason---Dead body was exhumed which was identified by the complainant as his daughter---Said witnesses were
declared to be hostile---Names of the accused-appellants had been added by the police---Circumstances
established that prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Accused-
appellants were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
1990 SCMR 619, 1995 SCMR 1345, 2004 SCMR 331, 2012 YLR 498, PLD 2002 SC 62,
40 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 310-A & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, giving a female in marriage or
otherwise in badl-e-sulah, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen
offender, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Circumstantial evidence---Scope---Accused-
appellants were charged for the murder of deceased---Prosecution had alleged that deceased resided in the house
of accused-appellants and they were responsible for the murder of deceased---Necessary ingredients to establish
the offence by circumstantial evidence were missing in the present case---Circumstances, from which the
conclusions were drawn, were to be fully established; all facts must be consistent with the hypothesis;
circumstances had to be of a conclusive nature and tendency; circumstances were to be of moral certainty actually
excluding every hypothesis, but proved---Circumstances established that prosecution failed to prove the guilt
through circumstantial evidence---Accused-appellants were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence
ABDUR RAB alias ALI AKBER VS State
Ss. 6 & 12---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 173---Jurisdiction of Anti-terrorism Court---Scope and extent---
Anti-Terrorism Court for taking cognizance and conducting trial of offences, had to make tentative assessment with
reference to allegations levelled in the FIR, the materials collected by the investigation agency and the surrounding
circumstances, depicting the commission of the offence.
SAJJAD alias SAJJU VS State
Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 394, 353 & 34---Terrorism, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, voluntary
causing hurt in committing robbery, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty---
Appreciation of evidence---Complainant (police) alleged that three unknown accused persons fired straight upon a
constable (injured) who was posted as guard at the bungalow of an Additional District and Sessions Judge---During
investigation accused persons were arrested but after their arrest no identification parade was held---Identification of
the accused on headlights of vehicle and street light was weak source of identification and in peculiar circumstances
of case it was highly doubtful---Identification of the culprits before the Trial Court was unsafe to rely for conviction---
Investigating Officer arrested the accused persons on the ground that he had spy information that accused persons
were involved in the commission of the offence---Injured had deposed that in fact there were six accused persons
but had not described the features of the accused in his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Evidence of injured was
not straightforward and confidence inspiring---Injured witness would not be relied upon ipso facto because of injuries
but it had to be examined that whether the evidence was trustworthy and confidence inspiring---No piece of
evidence had been produced by the prosecution to connect the accused persons in the commission of the offence---
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Syed ZAKI KAZMI VS State
41 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

1985 SCMR 1834, 1989 PCr.LJ 2227, 1997 PCr.LJ 280, 2002 SCMR 1795, 2006 SCMR 1846, 2011 SCMR 646,
2011 SCMR 806, PLD 1981 SC 142, PLD 2002 SC 56,
Ss. 3 & 4---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7--- Act of terrorism, causing explosion likely to endanger life
and property, making or possessing explosives substance---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---
Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused lobbed two hand grenades towards (Diplomatic)
Consulate consecutively, one hit the gate and the other landed inside the Consulate---Record showed that
complainant, other police officials and Rangers' personnel were present at the place of occurrence but they did not
act to either apprehend the accused or try to chase them and did not fire a single shot on them---Such conduct of
the police and other officials alleged to be present at the spot did not appeal to a prudent mind and gave the
impression that they were not present there at the relevant time---No explanation was available as to how the
accused escaped unscathed without any resistance or retaliation mounted by law enforcement agencies---
Prosecution had not submitted any document (daily diary) to establish the duty of the said police officials and others
at the Consulate on the day of incident---Investigating Officer had admitted that the police officials who had identified
the accused at police station were posted at police station on the day of incident---If the said police officials were
posted at police station then how their presence could be assumed at the place of incidence without any
documentary evidence to show their deployment there---Prosecution had failed to lead confidence inspiring
evidence to establish presence of the complainant and other witnesses at the spot on the relevant date---
Prosecution produced a witness, who was estate agent/property dealer, appeared to be a chance witness and had
not been able to satisfactorily prove his presence at the spot on the relevant date---Circumstances established that
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of
accused---Accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
ZAHOOR AHMED alias ABDUL KARIM VS State
Ss. 302, 324, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-
i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, act of
terrorism---Act of terrorism---Scope---Transfer of case from ordinary criminal court to the Anti-Terrorism Court was
challenged on the ground that after eight years, Trial Court had passed the order for resubmitting the final report
before the Anti-Terrorism Court and that prosecution case was fit for trial before the ordinary criminal court---
Validity---Prosecution case was that encounter took place between accused persons and the police wherein one
police Head Constable died due to firing by the accused persons---Act of firing at police, when they were
discharging their duties, was actually an "act of terrorism" and such persons were required to be tried by the Anti-
Terrorism Court only---Offence, therefore, fell in the ambit of Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was,
triable by Anti-Terrorism Court---Criminal Miscellaneous Application was dismissed accordingly.
ZAHOOR AHMED alias ABDUL KARIM VS State
2013 PCr.LJ 1259,
42 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 324, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-
i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, act of
terrorism---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Involvement of accused in an act of serious violence against
member of the police force, armed forces, civil armed forces, or a public servant was an act of terrorism and would
be triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court.
WASEEM YOUSUF VS State
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 386, 419, 170 & 34---Application for transfer of case from Anti
Terrorism Court to the court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed---Validity---Prosecution case was that son-in-law
of complainant was kidnapped by some persons for ransom---Accused being friend of complainant introduced a
person as Colonel of Rangers Intelligence and given assurance that he would manage for the recovery of his son-
in-law in lieu of Rs. three crore---Complainant had managed Rs. thirty lac which was forcibly snatched by the said
person, thus committed cheating and fraud on behalf of Rangers for damaging their reputation---Accused had
alleged that, in the present case, neither any weapon had been used nor the complainant party had been put under
any fear, therefore, the act did not come within the definition of "terrorism"---Material on record showed that the
ingredients required to meet the definition of "kidnapping for ransom" as laid down in S. 2(n), Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 lacked in the present case and accused had not even been charged under said section---Record showed that
evidence of complainant had been recorded before the Anti-Terrorism Court and he deposed that the accused had
committed robbery---Circumstances and facts of the case showed that accused-applicant attempted to mislead the
complainant by using the name of the Rangers in attempting to extract money from the complainant---Said offence
took place in a small private room secretly and was not within the knowledge of public---No uniform was ever worn
to indicate that any Rangers personnel was involved---Public had no idea that unscrupulous persons were using the
name of the Rangers to create a sense of fear or insecurity in society or amongst the business community by
suggesting that the Rangers were involved in extortion of kidnapping for ransom---Material on record showed that
said matter involved the complainant and the accused-applicant and the other accused alone and not the public at
large, which act did not intimidate or terrorize the business community or the public at large who remained
completely unaware of the same---No intention was on record from where it could be inferred that the act was
designed to terrorize the general public or society at large---Circumstances established that present was not the
case of extortion of money falling within the scope of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Ingredients of S. 6(1)(b) or (c) Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 had not been made out, as such case did not fall within the ambit of the said Act---Criminal
revision petition was allowed, case was ordered to be transferred to the ordinary criminal court.
WASEEM YOUSUF VS State
Ss.6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 386, 419, 170 & 34---Act of terrorism---Determination---Principles---In
order to consider whether offence was made out under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the material on record and the
surrounding circumstances were to be considered.
43 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MALOOK VS State
Ss. 324, 332, 353, 337-H(2), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 504, 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6
&7---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of
his duty, act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, causing shajjah-
i-khafifah, causing damiyah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, rioting, rioting armed with
deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case
was that Military Intelligence arrested an Indian Agent---Said Agent cried by calling helper and thereafter 9/12
persons armed with deadly weapons assaulted on the Military Intelligence team and made firing upon them---
Complainant party resisted but as the accused persons were more in number, complainant party received injuries,
therefore, the accused persons forcibly took away the Agent from their captivity---Prosecution, in order to establish
the case, produced as many as nine witnesses---Record showed that police had charged eleven accused, whereas
six were acquitted of the charge and remaining five were convicted---Incident took place at about 2.30 a.m., but the
source of identification had not been disclosed by the prosecution witnesses---Despite odd hours and in absence of
any source of identification, the complainant party had identified all the accused with parentage under very tense
position, particularly when indiscriminate firing had taken place---Admittedly, there was delay of 21-hours in lodging
of FIR, which suggested that FIR had been lodged after due consultation and deliberation---Both the parties were
armed with sophisticated weapons and they made straight fires upon each other but none from either side had
received any single injury, which was unbelievable---Such fact was also denied by circumstantial evidence---Trial
Court had acquitted the accused from the charge of firing upon the complainant party---Mashirs of place of the
incident, who, was Army personnel, admitted the fact that police did not secure any empty from the place of
incident---Evidence of prosecution witnesses appeared to be unreliable, untrustworthy and unbelievable---Trial
Court acquitted some of the accused by extending the benefit of doubt and convicted some of the accused from the
charge on the same set of evidence without any legal justification---In the present case, fatal injury caused to
complainant was attributed to one of the co-accused, who had died during the pendency of the case---
Circumstances established that prosecution case was full of doubts, benefit of which would resolve in favour of
accused persons---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ VS State
44 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 324, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 &
5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public
servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, act of terrorism, causing explosion likely to endanger life or
property, attempt to cause explosion of, for making or keeping explosion with intent to endanger life or property,
possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that police party
while on patrol duty, had seen three persons walking on foot and signaled them to stop---Persons so signaled
instead of stopping opened fire on the police party---Police retaliated and arrested said three persons/accused and
three grenades and pistols were recovered from their possession---Allegedly, accused persons fired six rounds
directly at the police party from a relatively short distance---Police party discharged one hundred and one rounds
directly at the accused persons---Record showed that none of the members of police party, the accused, the police
mobile or any other property or vehicle was injured or hit in the encounter---Prosecution had given exact number of
bullets fired but only ten empties were recovered which discharged from the weapons of the police party---Facts and
circumstances established reasonable doubt about the encounter, benefit of which would resolve in favour of
accused persons---Accused were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by
the Trial Court.

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ VS State
Ss. 324, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 &
5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public
servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, act of terrorism, causing explosion likely to endanger life or
property, attempt to cause explosion of, for making or keeping explosion with intent to endanger life or property,
possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapons of offence from accused persons---
Allegation on the accused persons was that they made firing on the police party---Pistols and grenades were
recovered from the possession of accused persons---Reports of Bomb Disposal Unit showed that three recovered
grenades were without detonators---Police party returned to the police station at 0140 hours but Bomb Disposal Unit
was not summoned till 1224 hours---Prosecution had not been able to explain the delay or where and how the hand
grenades were kept during said period---Delay had given rise to the inference that the occurrence, if any, did not
take place in the manner projected by the prosecution and the time was consumed in making effort to give coherent
attire to the prosecution case---Disparity between the weapons allegedly recovered and the weapons produced in
evidence existed---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory showed that three .30-bore test empties were sealed and
sent back to the Investigating Officer---None of the witnesses had produced said parcel in evidence---Make, model,
color or any identification mark of the seized pistols or the grenades was not mentioned in the memo. of arrest and
recovery of the grenades---Circumstances established reasonable doubt about the veracity of prosecution case,
benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused persons---Accused were acquitted in circumstances by setting
aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
IMRAN MALIK VS State
45 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 507---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Criminal
intimidation by an anonymous communication, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---
Prosecution case was that the police received telephonic calls from unknown person, issuing threat that he would
commit suicide bomb attack within city and that before the blast, he would make aerial firing to create terror and
would firstly kill prominent doctors by way of target killing and also to kill the general public---Police conveyed the
messages on wireless control and put the city police on high alert---Prosecution produced telephone operators, who
received telephone calls and put the police on high alert----Complainant, Investigating Officers and witnesses of
recovery and arrest of accused were also produced to prove the charge against the accused---Evidence of the
telephone operators and complainant was found to be convincing and corroborated not only through their oral
evidence but also through their actions and steps as was supported by the various roznamcha entries, which came
on record during trial---None of these witnesses were damaged on cross-examination---Statements of said
witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded promptly and no major contradictions were found in their
statements---Said factors showed that the calls were that made and received and the contents were that of a threat
to the public but did not connect the accused with the commission of offence---Record showed that there was no
eye-witness to see the accused while making such calls---No recording of call of accused was available on the basis
of which exact words could be captured---None of the witnesses who actually heard the caller over the phone were
ever confronted with the voice of the accused to see if the same had likeness---Memo of arrest and recovery did not
show that mobile phone and SIM were damaged but when exhibited, the same was found damaged---
Representative of the phone company stated that calls had been made through the recovered SIM but he was
unable to say whom the SIM belonged to---Investigating Officer proved that phone and SIM were in working order
by making a call to the Police Officer/witness but no such call was shown on the computerized record relating to the
recovered SIM---Said Police Officer/witness did not confirm that such call was made to him---Neither the phone nor
SIM were sealed as admitted by the Investigating Officer but he was contradicted by the evidence of recovery
witness, which showed that phone and SIM were sealed on the spot---Record showed that Investigating Officer
received secret information that accused was the caller and he was available at railway pattack at the time of his
arrest---Investigating Officer after the receipt of secret information had plenty of time to arrange for independent
witnesses but he failed to do so---Investigating Officer deposed that accused was arrested in the day time from a
busy area and 5 or 6 persons were gathered at the time of arrest of accused but none of them was made as
independent witness---Evidence of Investigating Officer showed that he asked the said persons to become witness
but all refused---Witness in contradiction of Investigating Officer stated that no person gathered at the time of arrest
despite same being a busy road---Witness stated that secret information was received whilst they were out on patrol
but Investigating Officer stated that he received secret information whilst they were at the police station---Delay of
over three hours in arresting the accused from a place which was only two kilometers away from the police station
remained unexplained and did not appeal to reason that the accused had allegedly been giving very serious threats
about causing terrorist relating activities---No entry to leave the police station was made by the Investigating Officer,
which alone could be fatal for the prosecution case---Record transpired that there was no evidence that a
description of appearance of accused was ever given---Newspaper articles produced by the accused at trial were
unchallenged and indicated that such threatening calls were still being made to the police after the arrest of the
accused, which was the indication that the police might have got the wrong person---Circumstances established that
prosecution had not been able to prove that the accused was the person who made the threats to police by
telephone---Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the
Trial Court.
IMRAN MALIK VS State
1995 SCMR 1793,
46 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 507---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, act
of terrorism---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Effect---Number of contradictions between the
evidence of Investigating Officer and recovery witness regarding the arrest and recovery of the accused existed---
Said contradictions would be fatal to the prosecution case---Accused could not be convicted on the basis of said
major contradictions and without strong, credible and reliable corroborative evidence.
MEHBOOB VS State
Ss. 302, 365-A & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(2)(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.
164 & 342---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., causing
disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, doing anything that caused
death---Appreciation of evidence---Confession of accused---Effect---Prosecution case was that accused-appellant
kidnapped the minor son of complainant for ransom but murdered the child---Complainant, father of the deceased
child had given the entire episode of the incident---Evidence of complainant remained unchallenged and un-rebutted
on all material particulars of the case---Accused got recorded his confessional statement before the Judicial
Magistrate---Judicial Magistrate appeared and deposed that after observing legal formalities and providing sufficient
time to accused for reflection, he recorded the confessional statement of accused, wherein he admitted that he had
kidnapped the boy for ransom and killed him---Accused had admitted in his statement recorded under S. 342 Cr.P.C.
that he had kidnapped the boy for ransom---Accused stated that he did not receive the ransom amount from the
complainant and he murdered the child---Accused admitted that after killing the boy, he buried the dead body in
sand dunes---Accused also admitted that he voluntarily made confessional statement before Judicial Magistrate
regarding kidnapping the minor for ransom and intentionally caused his death---All the incriminating pieces of
evidence were put to the accused for his explanation, he admitted the same to be true and correct---Accused
examined himself on oath in which he had admitted the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that
prosecution had proved its case against the accused for the reasons that accused pleaded guilty to the charge and
the trial court for its satisfaction, recorded prosecution evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in
circumstances.
MEHBOOB VS State
Ss. 302, 365-A & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(2)(a)---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction for
extorting property, valuable security etc., causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information
to screen offender, doing anything that caused death---Appreciation of evidence---Defence plea---Scope---Defence
had alleged that accused-appellant was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence---Record showed
that such plea was neither raised before the Investigating Officer nor at the stage of trial---Even before the High
Court, at the time of arguments, no request had been made for referring the accused-appellant for his medical
examination---Accused seemed to be a hardened criminal therefore, plea raised by defence appeared to be an
afterthought and the same was not accepted---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.
47 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MEHBOOB VS State
Ss. 302, 365-A & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(2)(a)---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction for
extorting property, valuable security etc., causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information
to screen offender, doing anything that caused death---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, quantum of---Scope---
Accused had kidnapped a boy for ransom and committed his murder, hence he did not deserve any leniency in
sentence---Death sentence in a murder case is a normal penalty---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in
circumstances.
SHER ZAMAN through Jail Superintendent, Karachi VS State
Ss. 4 & 5---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(ee) & 7---Use of explosives by any device including bomb
blast, attempt to cause explosion, making or keeping explosives with intent to endanger life and property, making or
possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of
doubt---Prosecution case was that on spy information, police apprehended the accused and on his personal search,
police recovered 9-MM pistol loaded with one live bullet in its chamber and seven live bullets in its magazine, 30-
bore pistol loaded with five bullets and two magazines containing five live bullets each as well as one rifle grenade---
Case being of spy information, complainant did not bother to associate with him any independent person of the
locality although, place was a thickly populated area---No plausible explanation was offered by the prosecution as to
why police did not associate any independent person to witness the arrest and recovery proceedings---Allegedly,
accused on seeing the police party, started firing upon them and in retaliation, police party also fired with
sophisticated weapons---Surprisingly, during the encounter, nobody received any injury from either side---No bullet
hit the police vehicle---Mashirnama showed that a private person was cited as mashir, but prosecution had failed to
produce said person in witness box---No explanation had been tendered by prosecution to justify the non-production
of said witness---Said act of withholding of most material witness would create an impression that the said witness, if
would have been brought into the witness box, might not have supported the prosecution case---Said factor caused
a dent in the prosecution case, therefore false implication of the accused could not be ruled out---Evidence and
documents available on record were contradictory to each other on material particulars of the case---Allegedly, as
per FIR, one rifle grenade was recovered from the accused, while charge was framed describing the number of rifle
grenade as different which did not match with the number mentioned in the FIR and mashirnama---Challan sheet
showed the number of recovered rifle grenade quite different---Complainant in his evidence had described the
number of rifle grenade altogether different---Expert of Bomb Disposal Unit in his evidence had produced clearance
certificate, which did not show any number of said rifle grenade---Alleged rifle grenade was recovered from the
accused on 2.4.2013 at 0200 hours but inspection report showed that same was inspected at about 1700 hours at
police station, after the delay of fourteen hours---Possibility of tampering with the alleged rifle grenade at police
station could not be ruled out---Prosecution had failed to establish safe custody of rifle grenade at police station---
Trial Court, in circumstances, had failed to establish that act of accused created sense of terror---No evidence was
led on said point, therefore, the element of "terrorism" was missing in the case---Mashirnama showed that one 9MM
pistol and one 30-bore pistol along with live bullets were recovered from the accused, but there was nothing on
record to show as to whether accused was separately challaned for said offences or alleged recovered weapons
and live bullets were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for report or not---Admittedly, incident took place during the
midnight---Source of identification had not been mentioned and under which light, police had prepared the
mashirnama of arrest and recovery---Number of infirmities/ lacunae, existed in the case which had created serious
doubt in the prosecution case, benefit of which, would resolve in favour of accused---Appeal was allowed and
accused was acquitted in circumstances.
48 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

ABDUL RAZAK VS State
S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
103---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., act of terrorism---Appreciation of
evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that servant of complainant took his son aged about 2½ to 3
years out of the house, but did not come back---Complainant received a phone call on his mobile phone from a
caller, who told that his son was kidnapped and rupees one crore were required for his release---Record showed
that most of the evidence for kidnapping rested against servant of the complainant as he was named in the FIR---
Complainant's own statement was that according to his wife, it was his servant who left the house with the minor
abductee to get juice---Allegedly, servant of the complainant was found and arrested with the abducted minor---
Allegedly, abductee was recovered by the police through operation which took place at the graveyard---Police
officials/eye-witnesses who made the recovery of the abductee and were present when accused were arrested,
were not able to recognize the accused in the court---Complainant had deposed that Police Officer had told him that
his son was recovered and could be taken from him---Complainant went to the police station and received his son---
Said statement of the complainant was contradictory, major in nature, to all the police officials/witnesses who were a
part of the team involved in the recovery of the abductee---Memo of arrest and recovery, which specifically stated
that the complainant and his brother were both at the time of the arrest and recovery of the abductee---Brother of
complainant was not called as a prosecution witness---Statement of the complainant showed that no police
operation took place at the grave yard and abductee was not recovered from there---Role of accused could have
been foisted on them by the police especially when there was no independent witness---Despite the fact that police
acting on spy information, had more than enough time and opportunity to take independent witness with them as the
recovery was allegedly made in morning hours; such was a violation of S.103, Cr.P.C.---No Call Data Record was
produced to show that any call was actually made to the mobile phone of complainant by any of the caller---No
mobile phone was recovered from any of the accused at the time of their arrests---No confessional statement from
any of the accused was on record---Complainant had not arranged money after the alleged ransom demand---No
motive had been shown as to why the servant of complainant or any of the other accused wanted to kidnap the son
of complainant---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Accused persons were acquitted by setting aside
conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
ABDUL RAZAK VS State
S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable
security etc., act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in lodging FIR---Effect---Delay of few days in
lodging the FIR, in a kidnapping of child for ransom case, was not fatal to the prosecution case---Parents, in such
cases, were frantically looking for their missing child---Before deciding to register FIR, as a last resort, once the
realization finally sets in that their child was not with a friend or relative and was missing.
49 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

DILSHAD VS State
S. 6---"Terrorism"---Ingredients---Three ingredients of the offence of terrorism under S.6(1)(a) and (b) of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 are firstly, taking of action specified in S.6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; secondly, that action is
committed with design, intention and mens rea; and thirdly, it has the impact of causing intimidation, awe, fear and
insecurity in the public or society.
DILSHAD VS State
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 353, 402 & 399---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or
criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, assembling for purpose of committing dacoity,
making preparation to commit dacoity, terrorism---Application for transfer of case to ordinary court---Police had
alleged that an encounter took place between seven to ten police officers and eight to ten criminals---No body from
the police side was injured and no damage was caused to any police mobile during the encounter which made the
case of ineffective firing---No independent eye-witness or Mashir was associated---Finding in the impugned order
that the encounter created panic terror and sense of insecurity in the mind of the people of the locality and the
elements of terrorism as defined in S. 6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were fully attracted, was without force---Action did
not fall within the definition of S. 6 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 since it had not been shown to be committed with
design, intention and mens rea; and it had no impact of causing intimidation, awe, fear and insecurity in the public or
society for simple reason that the incident occurred in an isolated place where nobody apart from the police and
alleged dacoits were present---Rule of law and due process rights mandate respect of all citizens even those
suspected of the most heinous crimes---Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary
criminal court was allowed accordingly.
SAJJAD ALI VS State
Ss. 324, 353, 385, 386, 506-B & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(2)K---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of
1965), S. 13-D---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his
duty, putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or
grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed weapon---
Appreciation of evidence---Record showed that complainant had substantiated the case of the prosecution during
his evidence and all the other prosecution witnesses and the material adduced in evidence had supported and
corroborated the prosecution case during the trial---Complainant remained consistent in his statement and the
version of the complainant had also been supported by the Police Official witnesses, which had been corroborated
by the material adduced in evidence---No contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses on material
points were found---FIRs in the present case were recorded with promptitude---Circumstances established that
prosecution had been able to prove the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Impugned
judgment did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of the evidence, which did not call for any interference---
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
50 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MEHRULLAH VS State
1995 SCMR 1765, 1996 SCMR 74, PLD 1994 SC 65, PLD 2009 SC 427,
Ss. 498 & 498-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 395, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
Ss. 6 & 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 4---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, dacoity,
rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, causing explosion, attempt to cause explosion or for making
or keeping explosive with intent to endanger human life and terrorism---Bail, refusal of---Accused persons were
implicated by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. wherein they had also
assigned the role of causing firearm injuries to deceased persons as well as injured persons in furtherance of
common object---Medical evidence was in line with the ocular version and eye-witnesses had also implicated the
present accused persons---Empties were also shown to be secured from the place of occurrence---Mala fides
though had been pleaded by accused but not to the complainant, prosecution witnesses or the police---Delay in
lodging of FIR had been fully explained by the complainant---Prima facie sufficient incriminating material was
available against the accused persons to connect them with the commission of alleged offence of murder of six
persons---Accused persons had failed to make out case for grant of pre-arrest bail---Bail was refused accordingly.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 1719 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case
Malik TARIQ AYUB VS State
1969 PCr.LJ 568, 1980 PCr.LJ 5, 1997 SCMR 1368, 1998 PCr.LJ 1795, 2002 SCMR 908, 2003 SCMR 1323, 2003
SCMR 1934, 2007 SCMR 142, 2008 MLD 728, 2008 SCMR 404, 2009 SCMR 527, 2011 PCr.LJ 1370, 2012 SCMR
517, 2012 SCMR 59, 2013 MLD 1588, 2016 SCMR 1754, 2017 SCMR 1572, 2017 SCMR 162, 2017 SCMR 533,
PLD 1999 SC 504, PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2003 SC 704, PLD 2004 Lahore
199, PLD 2005 SC 530, PLD 2009 SC 11, PLD 2016 SC 195, PLD 2016 SC 951, PLD 2017 SC 661, PLD 2018 SC
178,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Act of terrorism---Determination of---In order to determine, whether the offence fell within the
meaning of 'terrorism' it was necessary to examine the allegations levelled in the FIR; the material collected by the
Investigating Agency and the surrounding circumstances---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, under Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 had been broadened by the use of the word 'design' in S.6 of the said Act---Where action of accused
resulted in striking terror, creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in
a particular vicinity, it would amount to "terror" and such action would fall within the ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Terrorist created sense of fear or insecurity and psychological impact on the minds of people
or any section of the society---Determining factor of act of "terrorism" was the 'design' of accused in the commission
of offence which had created a sense of panic, fear and helplessness in public or any segment of the public---
Question of applicability of S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could not be adjudged solely on the basis of available
record---Recording of the prosecution evidence albeit some material evidence was essential---Trial Court erred in
just following the record and not appreciating the essence of 'test' which could only be established through
evidence---Impugned order was set aside.
Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1888 GILGIT-BALTISTAN-SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case
State VS MUHAMMAD NADEEM
51 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 324, 34 & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd,
common intention, abetment, act of terrorism---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal of evidence---No evidence
was available on record against respondent/ accused, except his absconsion, which could not be proved by the
prosecution as intentional and deliberate---Name and address of accused was also wrongly mentioned in the
warrants etc., due to which accused was not aware about the trial of the case and consequent sentence for
imprisonment was awarded by the Trial Court---No charge was framed by the Trial Court after the arrest of
accused---Judgment of the Trial Court was passed in absentia, which was violative of Fundamental Rights of
accused---Chief Court had rightly set aside the judgment of the Trial Court---No indulgence was warranted by the
Supreme Appellate Court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was dismissed---Impugned
judgment passed by Chief Court was maintained, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1102 GILGIT-BALTISTAN-SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case
SUHAIL KAMAL VS State
Ss. 324, 34, 341, 147, 148, 149 & 427---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-L---Attempt to commit qatl-
i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism, wrongful restraint, rioting, mischief causing damage---Reappraisal of
evidence---Benefit of doubt---Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused person---Chief Court, upheld their
conviction/sentences in appeal---Validity---Prosecution witness had not attributed any specific role to the accused
persons in commission of the alleged offence---No material was available on record except the confessional
statements of accused persons, which were not admissible unless corroborated by independent witnesses, or
supported by strong circumstantial evidence---Both courts below had failed to consider said facts therefore,
judgments so delivered by the courts below were the result of misreading, non-reading and non-appreciation of the
evidence on record---Prosecution had failed to prove the case against accused persons beyond the shadow of
doubt---Accused persons were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt---Judgments of Trial Court and Chief
Court, were set aside, in circumstances.
TAHIR IQBAL VS State
1995 MLD 1826, 1997 PCr.LJ 193, 1997 SCMR 1411, 1999 PCr.LJ 1107, 2004 PCr.LJ 490,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365, 368, 341 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 &
7---Kidnapping and abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, wrongfully concealing or keeping
in confinement kidnapped or abducted person, wrongful restraint, common intention, act of terrorism---Bail, grant
of---Compromise---Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused persons kidnapped the complainant and
his daughter---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that Nikah of daughter of complainant was performed
with the accused but later on, due to some difference between the couple, the relationship was broken---
Complainant/ abductee appeared before the court and got recorded his statement to the effect that on the
intervention of Jirga members, he and his wife did not want to proceed with the case against the accused persons
and they had no objection if the accused persons were released on bail---Admittedly, offences under Ss. 365-B &
368, P.P.C. and under Ss. 6 & 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not compoundable, however, fact remained that
parties had voluntarily compounded the matter and the complainant party had forgiven the accused persons and
they had no objection if the accused/petitioners were released on bail---Compromise was a good ground for release
of the accused/petitioners on bail---Where the complainant party was no longer willing to prosecute the matter any
further, Court could not compel it to do so---Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances.
52 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

ADNAN HUSSAIN VS State
Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7--- Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13-
D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism and recovery of unlicensed
weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence---Accused were charged for the murder of the
deceased---Circumstantial evidence was furnished by the brother of the deceased---Statement of said witness was
recorded by the police under S.161, Cr.P.C. after three days of the occurrence---Statement of said witness could not
be used as a circumstantial evidence as no recovery of motorbike of the accused or its further identification had
been conducted through said witness.
Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13-
weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged for the murder of the deceased---
Ocular account was furnished by the complainant---Presence of complainant at the place of occurrence was not
disputed but it was evident that he lodged FIR of the occurrence but did not either named the accused or even their
features---No identification parade was held to identify the culprits after their arrest, which was mandatory
requirement of law---Direct evidence of complainant, in circumstances, was of no avail to the prosecution---
Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt, benefit of
which would resolve in favour of accused---Accused were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside convictions
and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.
Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7--- Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13-
weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement---Reliance---Accused were charged for the murder of
the deceased---Record showed that confessional statement of the accused was recorded by the Police Officer on
4.2.2014, while the statement of co-accused was recorded by another Police Officer on 23.1.2015 and after
recording of conditional confessional statements, they were committed to judicial custody---Confessional statements
recorded by Police Officer would not be admissible in evidence---Statements of Investigating Officer and two Senior
Police Officers were on record and completely silent to the effect that there existed some extra ordinary or
compelling circumstances for non-production of the accused before a Judicial Magistrate---Such statements could
not be termed as confessional statement of the accused.
53 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence from accused---Reliance---Scope---30-bore
pistol was allegedly recovered from accused on his pointation on 28.1.2014, while he was arrested on
10.1.2014---Investigating Officer submitted application to Judicial Magistrate to depute a Magistrate as the accused
was willing to get the weapon of offence recovered---On the same day, Naib Tehsildar was deputed but recovery
was effected on 28.1.2014 and no reasons had been shown for said delay---Recovery of crime weapon after
eighteen days of arrest of accused raised a question mark regarding its genuineness---Five crime empties were
recovered on 9.1.2014, the day of occurrence---Record showed that crime weapon was recovered on 28.1.2014 but
the same were received in the office of Forensic Expert on 10.4,2014 and report was issued on 5.5.2014---Crime
articles were sent to expert after inordinate delay of about three months twelve days and that too together, which
created doubts about the authenticity of the report.
MUHAMMAD NADEEM VS State
2005 PCr.LJ 1889, PLD 2006 Kar. 678,
Ss. 302, 324, 34 & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 19(2)(10) & 21-L---Criminal Procedure Code (V
of 1898), S.353---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, abetment, act of terrorism---Trial in
absentia---Appreciation of evidence---Trial in absentia under S.19(10) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was a departure
from the normal procedure of trial of a criminal case---Fair trial was an inherent right of an accused guaranteed by
Constitution, as well as by Chapter-II of Gilgit-Baltistan Self-Governance and Empowerment Order, 2009; which had
stipulated that trial in absentia of accused would be violation of his Fundament Rights---Accused, in the present
case, was tried in absentia and no charge was framed against him---After arrest of accused, instead of sending him
to judicial lock up, he was handed over to joint investigation team for further investigation---Challan against accused
was submitted in the Anti-Terrorism Court and instead of framing the charge, Trial Court opted to decide application
of accused under S.19(12) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and upheld the sentence awarded to him in absentia---Held,
conviction of accused in the case, was handed down against him without following the mandatory provision of law
and without affording an opportunity of hearing to accused---When after investigation challan was submitted before
the Trial Court, the Trial Court was bound to frame the charge and afford a fair opportunity of defence to accused,
which had not been done---Provisions of S.19(10) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were a departure from general
law and if the conviction had to be recorded in absentia, the Trial Court must adhere and observe the procedure
provided therein in letter and spirit---In the present case, particulars of accused were recorded in a casual and
lethargic manner, and it could not be said with exactitude that process of law was duly and properly sent on proper
address of accused---Stance taken by accused that he was unaware of any proceedings against him, was to be
accepted as correct---When there were two possibilities before the court, the one which favoured accused, should
be adopted---Accused due to incomplete particulars and wrong address, remained unaware of any proceedings,
which aspect of case had not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court and Trial Court dismissed application
under S.19(12) in a hasty manner and without proper application of judicious mind---Prosecution had failed to
connect accused with the commission of offence---Judgment of Trial Court was set aside and accused was directed
to be released forthwith, in circumstances.
54 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

State VS ZULFIQAR ALI alias KAMO
Ss. 302, 324, 337-E, 109 & 34---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), Ss. 345(2) & 265-K---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-
i-amd, ghayr-jaifah, abetment, common intention, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property, act of
terrorism---Compromise---Application for acquittal---Parties during pendency of the case, effected compromise and
the accused-respondents were acquitted from the charges on the basis of said compromise---Prosecution
challenged the order of acquittal on the ground that compromise was defective as certain persons, who had no
locus standi to effect compromise had appeared on behalf of legal heirs of the deceased and injured---Validity---
Record showed that Trial Court accepted the statements of unauthorized persons for effecting compromise, which
made the compromise defective---Said inherent defect in the compromise could not be cured by any means---
Section 345(2), Cr.P.C. did not permit such a proxy on behalf of any victim---Appeal was accepted by the Chief
Court by setting aside order of acquittal and remanded the matter with the direction to summon the legal heirs and
injured, record their statements and pass appropriate order.
State VS SHAH RAEES KHAN
S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 506 (2), 147, 149 & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6 &
7---Terrorism, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, criminal intimidation, rioting, unlawful assembly, abetment---Petition for
cancellation of bail, dismissal of---Accused persons were arrested for raising slogans, using filthy language and for
firing upon rival group---Nothing was pointed out persuading to exercise discretion in favour of complainant---
Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
IKRAM ULLAH VS State
1991 SCMR 322, 1992 PCr.LJ 412, PLD 1964 SC 26, PLD 1985 SC 402,
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 34 & 188---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Arms
Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, disobedience to order duly promulgated by public
servant, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arms---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was not directly
charged in the FIR for opening fatal shots on the deceased---Indiscriminate firing was opened by accused party, one
of the bullets hit the deceased---Identity of main culprit, whose fire shot hit the deceased, remained doubtful and
debatable; as all the accused persons were attributed general firing and no specific allegations of firing were
attributed to the accused---Accused, though remained absconder for a considerable long time, but abscondance
alone, without any overt act, would not by itself be sufficient to sustain conviction on a capital charge---All the four
co-accused arrested in the present case with similar allegations, had already been released on bail---Case of
accused, was also one of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
55 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

State VS ZAHEER-UD-DIN
S. 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 12 & 23---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.417(2-A) &
345---Sodomy, act of terrorism---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Compromise---Accused was
booked for offence under S.377, P.P.C., but during investigation Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were also
added and after completion of investigation, challan was sent to the Court of Anti-Terrorism---Trial Court recorded
statements of father, mother, one uncle of the victim and some Jirga members to the effect that a compromise had
been effected between the parties---Trial Court on the same date, acquitted accused from the charges---Validity---
Trial Judge, had accepted the compromise, illegally and passed acquittal judgment in excess of his jurisdiction;
because the offence was not one of 'Terrorism' and Trial Judge wrongly and illegally took cognizance of the case
under S.12 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court should have sent back the case to ordinary court of
jurisdiction, even if no application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was filed by the either party---Trial Court
instead of laying off its hands, jumped into the case and assumed jurisdiction and despite resistence from State
Counsel that case of sodomy was not compoundable, accepted compromise and acquitted accused from the
charges on the same day---Such urgency, was because of some extraneous considerations and not to advance the
cause of justice---Appeal filed by the State was accepted by the Chief Court and impugned judgment passed by the
Anti-Terrorism Court, was set aside---Provisions of Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, being not attracted to the
case, same were deleted from the challan and case was transferred from the Anti-Terrorism Court to the Sessions
Judge for assuming adjudication and to start trial of accused.
WANG JIAN QIU VS State
S. 13---Foreigners Act (XXXIX of 1946), Ss.3 & 4---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(i) & 7(h)---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.265-E & 412---Possessing unlicensed arms, act of terrorism---Appreciation of
evidence---Pleading guilty---Accused who was a foreigner, at the time of framing of charge, pleaded guilty and
showed reluctance to produce any defence---Show-cause notice as per S.265-E, Cr.P.C., was served upon the
accused---Accused submitted reply to said notice and requested the court to take lenient view---Trial Court held that
offences against accused had fully been proved and accused had voluntarily confessed his guilt in the open court in
presence of his counsel as well as public prosecutor---Trial Court convicted accused under S.7(7) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for five years---Accused was also convicted under
S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to undergo for four years---Validity---Conviction recorded on
admission of guilt could not be challenged in appeal as provided under S.412, Cr.P.C., except about quantum of
sentence---Accused was provided opportunity to defend---Accused was found in possession of huge quantity of
arms/ammunition at the Pak-China border---Keeping of such a huge quantity of arms/ammunition, had shown ill-
intention of accused; if he would not have arrested before hand, it could have created a big dent in Pak-China
relations and defame Pakistan at international level--Court could not sit in isolation and could take notice of
changing surroundings and its approach must be dynamic and not static---Conviction of accused recorded under
S.7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was set aside as he was apprehended before execution of his design, while the
sentence of 4 years' imprisonment recorded under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, was maintained----
Weapons recovered from accused, were confiscated in favour of the State.
Citation Name: 2018 YLRN 290 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
56 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

SABIR ALI VS Qari ASIF
Ss. 324, 341, 392, 148, 149, 353 & 186---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Attempt to commit qatl-
i-amd, wrongful restraint, robbery, rioting, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty,
obstructing public servant in discharge of public function, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Police Officer
who lodged FIR, though named accused persons in the FIR, but during course of cross-examination, admitted that
there were 60/70 persons present over there; he also admitted that he could not tell the name of the person who
tutored the name of accused to him---Statement of injured was full of material contradictions/ improvements---
Presence of injured witness was established because of stamp of injuries on his person, but whatever he stated
about salient features of the case, could not be accepted as gospel truth---Statement of injured witness who
intentionally and deliberately improved upon his earlier statements, could not and should not be believed, when
same was contradicted from host of the circumstances of the case---Trial Court, while acquitting accused had
awarded compensation to the injured---No infirmity existed in the impugned judgment of Trial Court---Appeals
against acquittal were dismissed in circumstances---Compensation awarded to injured victim, was maintained.
AKHTAR VS State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Attempt
to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, act of terrorism--- Bail, grant of--- Further inquiry---Section 324, P.P.C., would attract
only when alleged offence was an attempt to murder---No allegation attracting the provisions of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 was levelled, therefore, application of said provisions of law was a question of further inquiry---
Complainant had levelled allegation against 59 persons and it was not clear that who among the alleged assailants
had any intention to murder any of the complainants---Questions as to whether occurrence was a sudden quarrel or
something preplanned and whether the alleged firing caused any injury to any of the complainants named in the FIR
or not were yet to be determined---First Information Report was silent as to who among assailants had caused injury
to the complainant side---Question as to whether only the accused persons were responsible for opening fire
resulting injuries to the complainant party was yet to be determined---Said aspect of the case was a question of
further inquiry---Accused was directed to be released on bail immediately, in circumstances.
SULTAN ALI VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, act of terrorism---
Appreciation of evidence---Trial Court convicted and sentenced co-accused and acquitted accused---Neither the
State nor the complainant filed any appeal against the acquitted accused---Appeal filed by co-accused against his
conviction and sentence, was dismissed by the Chief Court and Supreme Appellate Court set aside the judgment of
the Trial Court up to the extent of accused and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for decision afresh on its
merits in accordance with law---Application filed by accused before the Trial Court for maintaining acquittal order
earlier passed by the Trial Court having been turned down by the Trial Court, accused had filed present appeal---
Matter which had finally been decided by the Supreme Appellate Court, could not be adjudicated---Appeal being
misconceived, was dismissed, in circumstances.
57 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

NADEEM SHAH VS State
Ss. 4 & 5---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.188---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23-A---Pakistan Arms
Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.526---Possessing weapon of offence and
material of explosive---Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant---Petition for transfer of case from
court of Anti-Terrorism to ordinary court of competent jurisdiction---First Information Report showed that occurrence
was of an ordinary nature and Police had recovered a .30 bore pistol and a very negligible quantity of ordinary
explosive from one accused person---Nothing was on record showing any attempt on the part of accused persons
for using weapon of offence or explosive allegedly recovered from them for purpose of terrorism---Only evidence,
available on record against accused persons, was mere recovery of weapon of offence and the material of
explosive, normally used in developing lands, etc.---Present case was triable by the ordinary court and not by the
court of Anti-Terrorism---Anti-Terrorism Court was a special court and was meant to try only special cases involving
the offence of terrorism---Court of ordinary jurisdiction was the most suitable forum for hearing and trying ordinary
cases---Chief Court, while allowing petition, directed that challan of FIR be sent to ordinary court for trial of the case.
WARIS ALI VS State
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 ,
Ss. 6 & 7(a), 7(b) & 7(c)---Act of terrorism---Mens rea---Scope---In cases of terrorism, "mens rea" was essentially
the object to carrying out terrorist activities to overawe the State, the State institutions, the public at large,
destruction of public and private properties, assault on the law enforcing agencies or the public at large---Ultimate
object and purpose of such acts was to terrorize the society or to put it under constant fear, while in ordinary crimes
committed due to personal vengeance/blood feud or enmity, the element to create fear or sense of insecurity in the
society or public by means of terrorism was always missing.
WARIS ALI VS State
Ss. 6 & 7---Act of terrorism---Scope---Occurrence which resulted due to a personal motive/enmity for taking revenge
did not come within the fold of "terrorism"---Mere fact that a crime for personal motive was committed in a gruesome
or detestable manner, by itself would not be sufficient to bring the act within the meaning of terrorism or terrorist
activities---Furthermore, in certain ordinary crimes, the harm caused to human life might be devastating, gruesome
and sickening, however, this by itself would be not sufficient to bring the crime within the fold of terrorism or to attract
the provisions of Ss. 6 or 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, unless the object intended to be achieved fell within the
category of crimes, clearly meant to create terror in people and/or sense of insecurity.
58 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ch. SHAUKAT ALI VS Haji JAN MUHAMMAD
PLD 2016 SC 951,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 148 & 149---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to court
of ordinary jurisdiction---Prosecution alleged that nine nominated accused along with 5/6 other persons resorted to
indiscriminate firing as a result whereof nine persons from the complainant side sustained multiple firearm injuries---
Investigating officer, however, stated that only 11 empties of two different bores i.e. .30 bore and .12 bore were
recovered during inspection of the spot---FIR also alleged that all the nominated accused were armed with multiple
firearms but during investigation only .30 bore pistol and a 12 bore gun were recovered at the instance of only one
accused---Empties secured from the spot and the recovered weapons were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
(FSL) for analysis and the report of FSL was in the negative---All the five prosecution witnesses (some of whom
were injured) recorded their statements before the Magistrate under S. 164, Cr.P.C., wherein they by and large
exonerated the nominated accused persons by stating that they did not know as to who fired at them; that none of
the nominated accused fired at them nor they saw any weapon in the hands of any of the nominated accused
persons---Prima facie, it appeared from the facts of the case that altercation between the parties occurred all of a
sudden when the procession of the complainant side on winning the election was passing in front of house of
accused party and there was no prior 'object/design'---Allegations levelled in the FIR, the material collected by the
investigating agency during course of investigation and other surrounding circumstances showed that present case
was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---High Court had rightly directed the Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer the
record of present case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Sajid Rasheed Qureshi VS Manawar Ahmed
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 ,
Ss. 6(1) & 6(2)(a), (f)---
S. 6---
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 ,
Ss. 6(2)(a), (f) & 12---
59 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

AMJAD ALI VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--Third Sche , Reappraisal of
evidence--TERM , Terrorism--TERM ,
Ss. 6, 7(a) & Third Sched. Item No. 4(ii)---Terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Act of terrorirsm---Scope----Anti-
Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Power of Court to convict and sentence an accused---Scope---Occurrence in issue
had developed in many phases---Accused persons started firing in a mosque, chased the victims in a street and
then followed them inside the complainant party's house and throughout they kept on firing and murdered three
persons and injured another---Mere firing at one's personal enemy in the backdrop of a private vendetta or design
did not ipso facto bring the case within the purview of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 so as to brand the action
as terrorism---In the present case there was no 'design' or 'object' contemplated by S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---By virtue of Item No.4(ii) of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 a case became triable by an
Anti-Terrorism Court if use of firearms or explosives, etc. in a mosque, imambargah, church, temple or any other
place of worship was involved in the case---Said entry in the Third Schedule only made such a case triable by an
Anti-Terrorism Court but such a case did not ipso facto become a case of terrorism for the purposes of recording
convictions and sentences under S.6 read with S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Present case had, thus, rightly
been tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court but the said Court could not have convicted and sentenced the accused
persons for an offence under S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as it had separately convicted and sentenced
the accused persons (under S.302(b), P.P.C) for the offences of murder, etc. committed as ordinary crime---Appeal
was partly allowed and the accused persons' convictions and sentences recorded for the offence under S.7(a) of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were set aside.
NASEEBULLAH VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-II, QUETTA
60 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(2)(a)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b), 364-A, 367-A, 376 & 377---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), Chap. XXXIV [Ss.464-475]---Terrorism, qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, rape and sodomy---Appreciation of
evidence--- Lunatic, trial of---Procedure---Accused was convicted by Trial Court and was variously sentenced
maximum up to imprisonment for life---Plea raised by accused was that he was suffering from Schizophrenia and
needed proper medical treatment---Validity---Provisions of Ss.464, 465 & 466, Cr.P.C. related to unsoundness of
mind at the time of inquiry or trial and not at the time of commission of offence---Once Court reached to conclusion
that accused facing trial was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the trial was to be
postponed---Such person could be released under S.466, Cr.P.C., on sufficient surety given that he would be
properly taken care of and would be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person or for his
appearance when required by Court---Court was also empowered to direct accused to be detained in safe custody
in such a place and manner as it could think fit, if the Court was of the view that bail should not be taken or sufficient
security was not given---Mere making of an application on behalf of a person committed for trial, that he was of
unsound mind, was not sufficient to necessitate holding of an inquiry---When it appeared to the Court or the Court
had reason to believe that accused could be of unsound mind, inquiry was necessary and the question, whether
accused person was of unsound mind or not and incapable of making his defence, had to be decided prior to
framing of charge and recording of evidence---If Court was unable to detect simulation that accused could be of
unsound mind, such question had to be tried as a fact and medical evidence on the point was an indispensible
necessity---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and case was remanded to Trial
Court to decide the matter in terms of statutory provisions as contained in Chap. XXXIV, Cr.P.C.--- Appeal was
allowed in circumstances.
BIBI ZAWAR VS SESSIONS JUDGE QUETTA
S. 6(1)(b)---Act of "terrorism"---Determination as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit of "terrorism"---
Essential ingredients to form an act of "terrorism" were the allegations made in the FIR; material collected during
investigation and surrounding circumstances---To see as to whether the ingredients of alleged offence had any
nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Motivation,
object, design and purpose behind the said act was to be seen in order to determine as to whether a particular act
was an act of terrorism or not---Action resulted in striking terror or creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and
sense of insecurity among the people in the particular area would amount to terror---Such action would squarely fall
within the ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and would be triable by Anti-Terrorism Court.
BIBI ZAWAR VS SESSIONS JUDGE QUETTA
2002 SCMR 908, 2011 PCr.LJ 1370, 2012 SCMR 517, PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2002 SC 841,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--147 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 ,
61 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 324, 365, 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(b), 7(e) & 23---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to
commit qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person, rioting, rioting
armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Application for transfer of case from ordinary criminal court to Anti-
Terrorism Court by way of inserting S. 7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Scope---FIR showed that due to indiscriminate
firing of the accused persons at the house of the complainant-petitioner, resulted in the murder of two persons,
causing injuries to five other persons and abduction of two persons fell within the ambit of S. 6, Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Action of the accused resulted in striking terror and sence of insecurity amongst the people in the vicinity,
which amounted to create terror in the area---Circumstances established that Anti-Terrorism Court had exclusive
jurisdiction in the case as the action of accused squarely fell within the ambit of S. 6, Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Constitutional petition was allowed with the direction to the concerned Investigating Officer to insert S. 7,
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the FIR.
Citation Name: 2017 YLR 461 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case
KHAN JAVED KHAN VS State
2000 SCMR 785, 2007 SCMR 142, 2011 MLD 950, 2012 SCMR 517, 2013 YLR 92, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 1999
SC 504, PLD 2003 Lah. 267, PLD 2005 Pesh. 57, PLD 2005 SC 530, PLD 2016 SC 17,
Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 4---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting, causing explosion, act of terrorism---
Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Scope---Case was transferred by the Special Court constituted under Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 to an ordinary court on the ground that occurrence was the result of personal enmity between
the parties, therefore case did not fall under the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Petitioner had assailed the said
order with the assertion that occurrence had taken place during election campaign of the complainant when six
persons were done to death and two were injured and that act of accused persons was designed to create fear and
sense of insecurity amongst the public-at-large---Post-mortem reports of two deceased showed that they sustained
blast injuries, which brought the case within jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Accused persons had alleged that
occurrence took place on account of family feud and had no nexus with terrorism and that case of personal vendetta
did not fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---Admittedly, six persons were shot dead and two
were injured during the occurrence---Accused persons had chosen the days of election campaign of the
complainant for committing the offence---Post-mortem reports of two deceased showed that firearms and hand
grenades were used in the occurrence as they had received "Blast Injuries" during ambush made by the accused---
Provisions of Ss.6(ee) & 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were attracted in the incident in circumstances---Mode
of occurrence indicated that it was neither the case of sudden flare up nor that of provocation---Incident was pre-
planned under the garb of family feud with design to cause fear and sense of insecurity amongst the public and
people of the constituency of the complainant---Circumstances had brought the case of complainant within the
jurisdiction of Anti Terrorism Court---Constitutional petition was allowed and case was sent to the Anti-Terrorism
Court.
Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJ 527 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case
AHMAD ALI VS State
62 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 365-A, 364, 347, 147, 148, 149 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Qatl-i-amd,
kidnapping for extortion, kidnapping in order to murder, rioting, common object, common intention, act of terrorism---
Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary criminal court was sought contending that criminal
proceedings against the accused before the Anti-Terrorism Court were without jurisdiction, without lawful authority
and of no legal effect---Validity---Prosecution story was that accused kidnapped the deceased for extorting money,
confined him in illegal custody and thereafter murdered the deceased---Record showed that accused kidnapped the
victim for the purpose of ransom---Act of the accused created insecurity in the society---Offence, therefore, fell in the
ambit of Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was triable by Anti-Terrorism Court.
AHMAD ALI VS State
2014 PCr.LJ 105, 2014 PCr.LJ 1052,
Ss.302, 365-A, 364, 347, 147, 148, 149 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(1)(b) & 12---Act of
terrorism, qatl-i-amd, kidnapping for extortion, kidnapping in order to murder, rioting, common object, common
intention and act of terrorism---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---If the offence of murder and other offences
causes terror and fear in general public and thereby attracted the definition of S. 6(1)(b) of A.T.A., it would be triable
by the Ant-Terrorism Court---Circumstances for taking cognizance by the Anti-Terrorism Court could be determined
after recording evidence as to whether an offence of terrorism was made out or otherwise.
SHAH SIM KHAN VS State
S. 6--- "Terrorism"--- Scope--- Essential ingredients--- Three ingredients for determination of offence of terrorism
were (i) taking of action specified in S. 6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ii) action committed with design, intention
and mens rea (iii) causing intimidation, awe, fear and insecurity in the public or society.
SHAH SIM KHAN VS State
63 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), Ss. 15 & 17---Possession of un-licensed manufacture,
sale or repair of arms and ammunition, unauthorized transportation of arms and ammunition, unlicensed possession
of arms and ammunition terrorism--- Appreciation of evidence--- "Terrorism"---Essential ingredients---Complainant
(police) alleged that they received information about transportation of a huge lot of arms and ammunitions by a car
which was apprehended and recovery of ammunition was made from its secret cavities---Effect---Mere recovery of
huge quantity of ammunition without producing the cogent and concrete evidence showing that accused belonged to
a terrorist organization would not saddle accused for commission of an offence attracting "terrorism"---Ingredients
for determination of offence of terrorism were first taking of action specified in S. 6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
second action committed with design, intention and mens rea and third causing intimidation, awe, fear and
insecurity in the public or society---All such ingredients were not attracted to the facts and circumstances of present
case---Prosecution had based its opinion with regard to use of ammunition for the purpose of terrorist activities
merely on assumption and presumption which in the given circumstances could not be acceded to---Appeal was
allowed and case was remanded accordingly for decision afresh.
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.
SHAFIQ VS State
Sched. III, Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 5---Application for transfer of case from Anti-
Terrorism Court to the court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed---Validity---Prosecution case was that huge
quantity of arms, ammunition and explosive substances were recovered from the possession of accused---Offences,
falling under the ambit of Sched. III of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and having nexus with Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of the said Act
would be triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Question of jurisdiction of the Special Court had to be considered with
reference not only to the offence mentioned in the Schedule, but allegation contained in the FIR and provision of Ss.
6, 7 & 8 of the Act would be taken into account---If offence committed by a person falling under the definition of
"terrorism" as envisaged in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 same would be triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---
Record of the present case, showed that accused was found in possession of huge quantity of arms, ammunition
and explosive substances without any legal justification---Offence of accused fell within the meaning of S.6(2)(ee) of
the Act, which created serious risk to the safety of public or a section of public and created a distress and panic in
the masses---Said offence, therefore would be triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Constitutional petition was
dismissed accordingly.
SHAFIQ VS State
64 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Sched. III, Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 5---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court
to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Application for transfer of case, dismissal of---Validity---Prosecution case was
that huge quantity of arms, ammunition and explosive substances were recovered from the possession of
accused---Unlawful possession of an explosive substance or abetment for such an offence under the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908, was an act of "terrorism"---Said offence would be triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court being
empowered under the---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
AKHTAR MUHAMMAD VS State
S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 2(t), 6, 7(e), 8, 13, 17 & Third Schedule---Kidnapping or abducting
for extortion of property, valuable security, etc., act of Terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Jurisdiction of Anti-
Terrorism Court---Scope---Question before High Court was as to whether the offence under S. 365-A, P.P.C., if
having no nexus with the object of Ss. 6, 7 and 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, would still be triable by the Anti-
Terrorism Court or an ordinary court---Under S.2(t) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, 'Scheduled Offence' meant an
offence as set out in the Third Schedule of the Act---Abduction or kidnapping for ransom had been inserted in the
Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; therefore, S. 365-A, P.P.C. was a Scheduled Offence, which was similar
to offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, punishment of which had been provided under S. 7(e) of the Act---Both
offences were identical except that the quantum of punishment of both the offences slightly varied from each other---
Punishment provided under S. 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for the offence of kidnapping for ransom or hostage
taking was death or imprisonment for life---Abduction or kidnapping for ransom had been added in the Third
Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but punishment thereof had not been provided therein; rather, the punishment
had been provided under S. 365-A, P.P.C., that was death or imprisonment for life and forfeiture of property---
Forfeiture of property, in addition to death or imprisonment for life under S. 365-A, P.P.C., was the point of variation
in the sentences to the two offences; therefore, the accused was to be charged under S. 7(e) of the Act and under
S. 365-A, P.P.C. separately---In case of proof of the charge of abduction for ransom, if the offences had nexus with
the object of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the accused would be convicted under S.7(e) of the Act, otherwise
under S. 365-A, P.P.C.; however, at the same time, the accused would not be convicted under both the offences---
All offences with regard to use or threat of actions under S.6 of the Act, and offences mentioned under the Third
Schedule, would be exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court along with offences with which the accused might be
charged under the Code (P.P.C.) at the same trial, as provided under S.17 of the Act---Anti-Terrorism Court could
also try other offences with which an accused might under the Code be charged at the same trial if the offence was
connected with such other offence---If accused was charged under S. 7(a) of the Act and under S. 302, P.P.C., then
he would be separately charge sheeted under S.7(a) of the Act and under S. 302, P.P.C., and on proof of the
charges, the accused could be convicted and sentenced under each of the two sections of the laws, as one related
to special law while the other related to ordinary law---However, in case of an offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
and scheduled offence, the accused though would be charge sheeted separately, but he would be convicted under
only one offence keeping in view the proof available on the record---Words 'under this Act' used in S. 13 of Anti-
Terrorism Act clarified trial of the cases under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the words 'of scheduled offences' spoke
about the trial of scheduled offence as according to S. 2(t) of the Act, 'Scheduled Offence' meant an offence as set
out in the Third Schedule---Offences mentioned in the Third Schedule, even having no nexus with the object or
terrorism, would be exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and not by an ordinary court.
65 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM


RIZWAN AHMED QURESHI VS State
S. 439---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 353, 385, 386 &
34---Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S.25-B---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(i)-A---Terrorism, Bhatta, recovery of
weapon---Supervisory jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Appeal, non-filing of---Benefit of
doubt---Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced variously maximum up to imprisonment for five years
but he did not assail his conviction and sentence---High Court acquitted co-accused persons who had filed their
appeals---Validity---High Court, had control and superintendence over courts below and could exercise visitorial
jurisdiction in respect of matters which did not fall under ambit of appeals---Revisional jurisdiction could be exercised
by the High Court in respect of courts below in cases where appeal or leave to appeal was not to be filed---Such
jurisdiction was very wide and could be exercised whenever facts calling for its exercise or brought to the notice of
the Court, where the order of Trial Court was illegal and superficial based on misconception of law and facts and
quite contrary---High Court could exercise jurisdiction to correct, manifest, illegal or to prevent gross miscarriage of
justice---Jail authorities were directed to release the accused as his co-accused were also acquitted of the charge---
Accused was also acquitted in circumstances.
RIZWAN AHMED QURESHI VS State
Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.353, 385, 386 & 34---Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S.25-B---Sindh Arms
Act (V of 2013), S.23(i)-A---Terrorism, Bhatta, Extortion, recovery of weapon---Police encounter---Proof---
Appreciation of evidence---Accused persons faced trial for demanding Bhatta by issuing a slip to complainant and
also made threatening telephone calls---Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court and sentenced variously
maximum up to imprisonment for five years---Validity---Handwriting on Bhatta slip was not got matched not voice
was identified---No confessional statements of accused persons was on record---Names of accused persons were
not mentioned in the FIR and they were supposed to be produced before Magistrate for holding identification parade
but no such parade was held---First Information Report though showed that police encounter took place for few
minutes in-between-police and accused persons but neither any damage was caused to the police vehicle nor any
injury was caused to any police official---Such fact remained in mystery and created doubt in prosecution case---
Police officials narrated different stories in their statements regarding alleged raid, seizure, recovery and property
shown in Court and the same could not be safely relief upon for conviction of accused persons---Prosecution failed
to prove its case against accused persons and Trial Court did not appreciate evidence properly---High Court set
aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and all accused persons were acquitted of the charge---
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
RASHID VS State
66 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302(b), 353, 148, 149 & 114---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal
force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intention,
abetment, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence from accused---Allegation
against accused persons was that they made direct firing at deceased/police official---Accused persons had also
made aerial firing with intention to create harassment and fled away after committing qatl-i-amd of deceased/police
official---Weapon of offence, (pistol) had been recovered from the possession of accused---Said pistol was sent to
the Ballistic Expert for examination along-with the empties recovered from the crime-scene---Report of Ballistic
Expert showed that empties recovered from the place of occurrence were fired from the said weapon of offence---
Recovery of pistol from the possession of accused, which was found to be used in the commission of offence, was
yet another piece of evidence, which supported the prosecution case---Six empties of 9 m.m. bore, four empties of
30-bore and ten empties of Kalashnikov were recovered from the place of incident---Said recovery corresponded
exactly with the claim of prosecution relating to aerial firing made by the accused persons at the spot for spreading
terror---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.
RASHID VS State
Ss. 302(b), 353, 148, 149 & 114---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force
to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intention, abetment,
act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Allegation against accused persons was that they
made direct firing at deceased/police official---Accused persons had also made aerial firing with intention to create
harassment and fled away after committing qatl-i-amd of deceased/police official---FIR showed that co-accused was
armed with Kalashnikov but no role was attributed to him---Co-accused was only alleged to be sitting inside the
car---Complainant and eye-witnesses had not assigned him any role either, except firing in the air---Co-accused, in
his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. had submitted copies of some medical documents, indicated him to be a
disabled person---No incriminating article was recovered from co-accused, which lent any credence to the
allegations leveled against him---Facts and circumstances established reasonable doubt about the presence of co-
accused at the spot, and his sharing common intention with the main accused, benefit of which would resolve in
favour of co-accused---Appeal against accused was dismissed while co-accused was acquitted by extending him
benefit of doubt.
RASHID VS State
67 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302(b), 353, 148, 149 & 114---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force
to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intention, abetment,
act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account corroborated medical evidence---Allegations against
accused persons were that they made direct firing at deceased/police official---Accused persons had also made
aerial firing with intention to create harassment and fled away after committing qatl-i-amd of deceased/police
official---Complainant/eye-witness had given detailed account of the incident, which was supported by witnesses---
No material contradiction had come on record in spite of lengthy cross-examination---Evidence of witnesses was
consistent and confidence-inspiring, which showed that accused and other two co-accused committed murder of
deceased with fire-arms---Accused was arrested near the place of occurrence, while trying to flee---Post-mortem
report of deceased showed three fire arm injuries on his body which was in conformity with the evidence of
prosecution witnesses---No material contradiction in the evidence of witnesses which would have suggested false
implication of accused was found---Circumstances established that accused was responsible for committing murder
of the deceased---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.
Moulvi IQBAL HAIDER VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Art. 63(1)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Protection of Pakistan Act (X of 2014), Preamble---
Disqualifications for membership of Provincial Assembly---Telephonic speech delivered by head of a political party
against the State and its organs---Respondents, who were elected members of Provincial Assembly and belonged
to the political party in question heard the telephonic speech during a sit in strike and were accused of not taking
any steps to stop the speech and thereby allegedly facilitated the offence---Petitioner filed reference against the
respondents before the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly seeking their disqualification in terms of the Art.63 of
the Constitution---Held, that none of the situations envisaged under Art.63(1)(a) to (p) of the Constitution under
which a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) could be disqualified, had been cited by the petitioner, on the
contrary, on the basis of some vague allegations against the founder leader of a political party, and in the absence of
any concrete material produced by the petitioner, reference was filed before the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly
for seeking disqualification of respondents---No direct allegation was made against the respondents for having
committed any offence, which may attract any of the provisions of the Constitution or the provisions of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 or Protection of Pakistan Act, 2014---Admittedly, nothing had been attributed to respondents, which may
suggest that they had raised any Anti-State slogans or facilitated or participated in any activity which could possibly
attract any cognizable offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or the Protection of Pakistan Act, 2014---Petitioner did
not file the authenticated audio or written version of the purported telephonic speech, nor established any overt role
of respondents toward knowledge, facilitation or even participation in respect of objectionable part of such
telephonic audio speech---Respondent were the elected Members of Provincial Assembly and represented the will
of the large number of voters in their respective constituencies, who had casted their votes in favour of respondents,
therefore, in the absence of any valid reasons as provided under Art.63 of the Constitution they could not be de-
seated on the basis of mere whims and baseless allegations by some individual, who did not prima facie have any
locus standi or cause of action even to file such reference---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN VS SHO P.S. GARHI KHAIRO, DISTRICT JACOBABAD
68 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) 1898--190 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--193 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--526 ,
Ss. 190, 193 & 526(3)---Anti-Terrorism Act(XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Transfer of case from court of ordinary
jurisdiction to Anti-Terrorism Court---Scope---Allegations against the accused petitioner were that they assaulted
upon the complainant party with deadly weapons; in consequence of which nine persons received injuries, out of
which six succumbed to injuries---Accused party in order to spread terror, fired Rocket Launcher upon the
complainant party---Accused persons joyously fired in the air---Police submitted challan before the court of ordinary
jurisdiction---Court of ordinary jurisdiction holding that case against the accused petitioner was triable by Anti-
Terrorism Court and sent the case to the Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---Record showed that neither accused nor
other side had been heard and the court of ordinary jurisdiction had straightway decided the question of jurisdiction
thereby causing miscarriage of justice---Such findings being against the principles of natural justice, were patently
illegal and liable to be set aside---Constitutional petition was allowed and matter was remanded to the court of
ordinary jurisdiction with the direction to issue notice to Prosecutor General, accused and complainant party and
after hearing all the concerned, pass appropriate order.
MUHAMMAD RASHID VS State
Ss. 6, 7(a) & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Murder---Act of terrorism---Ingredients---Accused were
aggrieved of order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, declining to transfer case to court of plenary jurisdiction---Plea
raised by accused persons was that ingredients of terrorism were missing in the case---Validity---Case of murder did
not automatically become an act of terrorism under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---In addition to murder, other
ingredients which formed a part of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 also needed to be satisfied based on facts and
circumstances of each case---Such additional ingredients included whether act was designed to coerce and
intimidate or overawe government or public or a section of public or community or sect or foreign government or
population or any international organization or created a sense of fear or insecurity in society along with necessary
intent---Deceased was a senior activist of a major political party and her murder was intended to spread fear
amongst other members/potential voters of that political party shortly before re-election in the constituency---Such
offence of murder fell within ambit of S.6 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as other ingredients had also been met---High
Court declined to interfere in order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
GHULAM ABBAS VS State
PLD 1996 SC 241,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--353 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--392 , Sindh Arms Act 2013--23-A ,
69 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 353, 392, 337 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.
6/7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23-A---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public
servant from discharging of his duty, robbery, shajjah, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed
arms---Bail, grant of---Principle---When reasonable doubt existed with regard to the participation of accused in the
crime or about the truth or probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support
of the charge, accused would not be deprived of benefit of bail.
GHULAM ABBAS VS State
2010 SCMR 1178, 2011 MLD 1075, 2012 MLD 599, PLD 1996 SC 241,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further
Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--392 , Sindh Arms Act 2013--23-A ,
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 353, 392, 337 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.
6/7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23-A---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public
servant from discharging of his duty, robbery, shajjah, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed
arms---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was charged in FIR for firing on police party with the intention to kill
them when police party raided for the arrest of accused wanted in another criminal case---Record showed that son
of accused had been killed in the alleged incident and wife of accused had sustained injuries in the incident but
Investigating Officer had suppressed the injuries---Prosecution case was that there was exchange of fires from both
sides with sophisticated weapons in which only one Police Official of the police party received firearm injury on his
non-vital part of the body---Facts and circumstances suggested that ingredients of S. 324, P.P.C. and S. 7 Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 were yet to be determined at trial---Prima facie, case against the accused required further
inquiry---Accused was therefore, allowed bail in circumstances.
ABDUL AZIZ VS MUHAMMAD PUNHAL
S.6---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, determination of---Complainant had challenged the order passed by Anti-
Terrorism Court, by which it was directed the Investigating Officer to submit challan of accused before the ordinary
criminal court---Validity---Commission of any act, creating fear and insecurity in any Section of people would fall
within the ambit of case as contemplated under S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Anti-Terrorism Court would
assume the jurisdiction for trial of such a case.
ABDUL AZIZ VS MUHAMMAD PUNHAL
70 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

2003 SCMR 1323, 2009 PCr.LJ 346, 2012 SCMR 517, PLD 2000 Lah. 449, PLD 2003 SC 224,
1860--201 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--364-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--377 ,
Ss.302, 364-A, 201 & 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(b), 7(e) & 23---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping a
person under the age of ten, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, un-natural offence, act of terrorism---
Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary criminal court was allowed---Validity---
Prosecution case was that accused kidnapped the minor son of complainant, murdered him by strangulation after
committing carnal intercourse and then his body was thrown in river---Dead body of the deceased boy was
recovered from the river---When dead body of the minor boy was taken out from river and brought for burial, it would
have certainly caused not only shock to the parents and close relatives but also created fear and insecurity amongst
the people of vicinity having children of same age---Offence committed in presence of people could not only create
insecurity in the minds of people but its impact upon minds of people was to be seen---In the present case, the way
the boy was kidnapped, sexually assaulted, killed by strangulation and thrown into river, recovery of dead body in
such mutilated shape was not only the kind of occurrence which would not create terror and horror in the people or
any section of people but the onlookers must have felt fear and insecurity on seeing the barbaric and callous
manner in which the innocent boy was killed---Such act of the accused was not only heinous but would come within
the definition of "terrorism"---Application was therefore, allowed and case was directed to be tried by Anti-Terrorism
Court.
ZAHOOR AHMED VS State
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 311, 387, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-
i-amd, ta'zir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, putting person in fear of death or of grievous
hurt in order to commit extortion, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intention, unlawful assembly act of
terrorism---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary criminal court was sought contending that
proceedings against the accused party before the Anti-Terrorism Court were without jurisdiction, without lawful
authority and of no legal effect---Validity---Record showed that there was a personal enmity between the parties
over a piece of land---No allegation of sectarian and religious issues and no threat or over-awe to society or section
of people or public was alleged in the case---Admittedly, one of the deceased was public servant but he was not on
official duty at the time of occurrence---No criminal record was available against the accused, which showed their
involvement in terrorist activities or land grabbing--- Allegation regarding demanding "Bhatta" by the accused/
applicant could not be established---Record showed that counter FIR had been lodged by the accused party against
the complainant party---In both the FIRs, Ss. 6 & 7 of the Act of 1997 were applied but only the case of counter FIR
was returned by the Court with the direction to submit the same before the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Application
of accused party to transfer the case of complainant to the court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed---High Court
observed that dispute was between the complainant party and accused party over possession of government plot
on lease basis---Question of creating "terror" in the minds of general public had not arisen, thus the alleged offence
had no nexus with Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Petition was allowed accordingly.
TAJ MUHAMMAD alias TAJO RIND VS State
71 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 324, 353, 404, 365 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit
qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, dishonest misappropriation of
property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and
wrongfully to confine person, unlawful assembly, terrorism---Application of evidence---Name of accused was
mentioned in FIR and prosecution case was silent as to how the accused was known to the complainant and other
witnesses---Witnesses had deposed against accused in unequivocal manner that he was armed with Kalashnikov
and hand grenade and in order to commit murder of police officials and to rob arms and ammunitions from the
Police Station, he had made direct firing---No material showing enmity of Police Officials against accused or to
falsely implicate him was available---Accused was not alleged to have been involved in any other criminal case---As
to how witnesses were able to identify accused on the day of incident was not clear---Witness had stated that he
identified accused and others in the light of bulbs installed in Police Station but Investigating Officer in his cross-
examination revealed that there was no electricity bulb in the Police Station or in its surroundings but there were
gas-lamps providing light to Police Station---Site-plan and sketch had shown points where either electric bulbs or
gas lamps providing light to police station were installed---One witness who got injured and his brain was protruding
out slightly, allegedly regained his senses after about 20 minutes of the receiving head injury and identified culprits
exactly by names, which was highly improbable and doubtful---Looted arms and ammunition was recovered
subsequently from ditches or from abandoned places and not from any of the accused---Bullet casings were not
sent to Forensic Expert for report---FIR was registered after the delay of almost eight hours---Keeping in view
evidence of eye-witnesses, Investigating Officer, medico-legal officer and tapedar in juxtaposition, it would lead to an
irresistible inference of innocence of accused---While extending benefit of doubt to the accused he was acquitted of
the charge---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
BUKHSHAL VS SPECIAL JUDGE (ANTI TERRORISM), HYDERABAD
S. 6--- "Terrorism"--- Essential elements---To constitute an offence of terrorism for the purpose of attracting any
provision or Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the element of striking terror or creating of sense of fear and
insecurity in public at large by doing any act or thing was essential---Such act should be committed with the sole
object to terrorize the people and to feel them insecure.
BUKHSHAL VS SPECIAL JUDGE (ANTI TERRORISM), HYDERABAD
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 120-B, 337-H(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, criminal conspiracy, hurt,
common intention---Act of terrorism---Scope---Transfer of case to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Accused
persons had impugned the order passed by Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court whereby application under S.23,
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 filed by accused persons for transfer of case to ordinary Court was dismissed---Feud
existed between the parties over the management of a Dargah---No independent evidence had been collected by
prosecution to prima facie establish that the act of accused had created panic and stretched sense of insecurity and
spread terror among the public at large present on the spot---Even there was no iota of evidence that people
present on the spot started running and due to panic the shopkeepers shutter down their shops---Alleged offence
was not an "act of terrorism" but the factum of old animosity between both groups which was reflected from
lodgment of several FIRs---No extra-ordinary circumstances existed in the present case to justify that trial of case
should be conducted by Anti-Terrorism Court--- Revision application was allowed accordingly.
72 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

NAZEER ALI alias NAZEER VS State
S. 392---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7(b), (h)---Robbery, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---
Prosecution version was that at 1:45 am. on Link Road, while, committing robbery of the car, a Police party, during
routine patrolling, reached there and was attacked by the culprits---Accused, or per allegations, had not made attack
on the Police party to create any terror, or sense of fear, or insecurity in the people, but all of a sudden on seeing the
Police party, accused made firing in order to escape from wardat---Intention of accused, was not at all to create
sense of insecurity, or de-stabilize the public-at-large---Design, or purpose of the offence as contemplated under S.6
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was not attracted---Anti-Terrorism Court, had no jurisdiction to try the present case---Trial
was vitiated and the impugned judgment being untenable, was set aside---Case was remanded to judge Anti-
Terrorism Court, which would remit the case to the ordinary court having jurisdiction for its disposal according to law.
MASHOOQUE ALI VS State
S. 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Sodomy---Application for transfer of case from Anti-
Terrorism Court to ordinary criminal court with contention that proceedings against the accused before the Anti-
Terrorism Court in the present offence would not fall within the ambit of S. 6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and trial
before Anti-Terrorism Court under S. 7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would be coram non judice---Validity---Prosecution
case was that accused was armed with pistol and he had taken the minor son of complainant to a room and
committed sodomy with him by force---Record showed that accused committed act of sodomy in a room---Motive of
the accused was only to commit unnatural offence---Application of S. 7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which primarily
required spread of sense of insecurity and fear in people lacked in the present case---Circumstances established
that Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence, as it did not fall within the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 and was triable by an ordinary criminal court having jurisdiction---Application for transfer of case to ordinary
court was allowed.
SHER HAKEEM VS State
73 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(2)(ee), 7(ff) & 25---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)-
A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Terrorism, recovery of explosives and arms---Appreciation of
evidence---Mis-description of explosive---Failure to confront accused with evidence in his statement under S. 342,
Cr.P.C.---Hand grenades and pistol were recovered from accused and he was convicted by Trial Court on different
charges and various sentences were imposed maximum upto fourteen years of imprisonment---Validity---FIR and
memo of arrest and seizure specified incendiary/explosive device recovered from accused to be a 'hand grenade'
and the same formed basis of charge and thereafter consistently referred to by such description in the depositions
of prosecution witnesses---Inspection Report showed that the subject of what was examined were 'rifle grenades'---
Such glaring and obvious contradiction could not be reconciled and was fatal to prosecution's case, especially as
the same was based on alleged factum of recovery---High Court dispelled plea of lack of expertise on the part of
police personnel---Letter addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police seeking permission for the matter to be tried
under S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, whilst referring to the recovery of 'hand grenades' also recorded that the
same were defused through Bomb Disposal Unit Report---Such report of Bomb Disposal Unit did not appear to form
part of record of trial---Accused was not confronted with the Bomb Disposal Unit Report at the time of statement
under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Such omission precluded the documents from being used as evidence against him at trial---
No material was available to controvert such omissions and irregularities---High Court set aside conviction and
sentence awarded to accused as such factors served to create appreciable doubt as to the veracity of prosecution
case---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
KAMRAN KHAN alias DOCTOR VS State
74 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6 & 23----Police Act (V of 1861), S. 22---Transfer of cases to ordinary criminal courts---Act of terrorism---'Terror'
and 'terrorism'---Distinction and scope---Act of terrorism---Scope---Murder of a policeman---Attack on the symbol of
the State's authority---Anti-Terrorism Court turned down the application for transfer of the case to ordinary criminal
court---Accused took the plea that since the deceased police officer was not on duty at time of the incident,
therefore, the offence did not fall under S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the case was to be tried by ordinary
criminal court---State counsel contended that the deceased policeman was to be treated always on duty under the
law---Validity---Case of murder in terms of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not automatically become an "act of
terrorism" under the Act, the other ingredients, which formed part of S. 6 of the Act, also needed to be satisfied
based on the facts and circumstances of each case---Difference between 'terror' and 'terrorism' was the design and
purpose understood in the criminal jurisprudence as mens rea---In case of 'terror' the act, or the actus reus was not
motivated to create fear and insecurity in the society at large, but the same was actuated with a desire to commit a
private crime against targeted individuals, etc., and the fear and insecurity created by the act in the society at large
was only an unintended consequence or a fall out thereof; whereas, in case of 'terrorism', the main purpose was the
creation of fear and insecurity in the society at large and the actual victims, by and large, were not the real targets---
Real test to determine whether a particular act was an act of 'terrorism' or not was the motivation, object, design or
purpose behind the act and not the consequential effect created by such act---Brutality or scale of the crime did not
necessarily bring the case within the purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but the intention behind the act, which
could be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, was one of the many factors for determining
whether or not a case of murder was an ordinary case of murder to be tried by the ordinary criminal courts or a case
of murder which would amount to 'terrorism' coming within the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court
observed that Pakistan was passing through turbulent times in terms of threats to its internal security, and the law
and order situation had been in poor state for many years; hence, prevailing sense of insecurity existed amongst
members of public---Courts, nevertheless, could not allow themselves to be blinded by the current situation in
respect of acts of 'terrorism' being carried out in the country and treat every crime, such as murder, as falling under
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in a mechanical fashion---Facts, circumstances and intention behind each offence must be
considered and correct law in terms of jurisdiction must be carefully applied---Fact that the murdered person was a
policeman, would not bring the act within the ambit of S. 6(2)(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and motive behind the
murder of the policeman was to be established first---In case the motive for the murder was on account of private
dispute and did not escalate beyond his murder as opposed to intimidating or terrorizing the police force or the
public then the same might not fall within S. 6 of the Act---In the present case, however, nothing was shown to the
effect that the deceased policeman had any enmity with any one; the deceased was in a crowded hotel in broad day
light during the middle of the day where other members of the public would have been present, when two unknown
persons came on motorcycle and shot him three times and took away his service pistol---Whether or not the
deceased was on duty at time of the incident was of little significance---Deceased had been killed because he was
policemen with a view to spread fear not only amongst servicing members of the police force but also members of
the public, who were present nearby---Attacks on, and murder of, members of the police force, which had become
quite frequent occurrence in recent times, must be regarded as crimes of the most serious nature, and the same
needed to be discouraged and dealt with firmly---Since role of the police, by and large, was to serve and protect the
public on behalf of the State, and as such, an attack on the police could be regarded as attack against a symbol of
the State's authority---Even if the deceased were not the police officer, his cold blooded murder, based on the facts
and circumstances of the case, must have been intended to place a sense of fear and insecurity, especially amongst
those present at the time of the incident or in the locality of the incident---Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly held that
the offence was not a case of simple murder---Impugned order was upheld---Revision petition was dismissed
accordingly.
NAEEM ULLAH NIAZI VS State
75 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 6 (2)(ee)---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Use of explosives by any device, keeping explosive with intent to endanger
life or property, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Defence objected
that no independent witnesses were associated at the time of search, which was violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---
Validity---In searches which took place in broad daylight in a crowded area, it would not be fatal to a case if
independent witnesses were not associated with the search---Law could not be ignored on this issue but its lack of
application would not be fatal to a case where the crime was serious and other evidence was compelling---No
enmity, bias or mala fide had been shown against the prosecution witnesses, who happened to be Police Officers---
Police Officers were as good as any other witness in respect of searches---Circumstances established that non-
association of independent witnesses at the time of searches would not be fatal---Appeal against conviction was
dismissed, however the sentence was reduced from imprisonment for fourteen years to imprisonment for ten years.
S. 6 (2)(ee)---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Use of
explosives by any device, keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, possessing unlicensed arms---
Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Prosecution case was that one hand grenade and one .30-bore
pistol along with three live rounds in its magazine were recovered from the possession of accused---Witness/initiator
stated the details of arrest and recovery, which was similar to the FIR, filed by him---Statement of witness produced
by prosecution was fully corroborating the statement of initiator---Witnesses were not damaged by cross-
examination--- Evidence of prosecution witness was corroborative, reliable and trustworthy but contained only a few
minor inconsistencies, which had no effect on the outcome of the case---Accused had alleged in his statement
recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., that police had falsely implicated him in the case because he was son of a retired
head constable and police held a departmental grudge against him---No such allegation was put to any of the
prosecution witness---No witness was called by the accused to prove said version, which showed that same was an
afterthought---During cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, it was not suggested that no recovery had
been made from accused of either the hand grenade or the pistol---Positive reports of Forensic Science Laboratory
and Bomb Disposal Squad were available on the record---Circumstances and facts established that prosecution had
proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on corroborative and reliable oral as well as
documentary evidence, which was not dented during the cross-examination, however, accused was said to be a first
offender and the sole bread winner of his family, therefore appeal was dismissed but sentence was reduced from
fourteen years to ten years.
76 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 6(2)(ee)---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Use of
explosives by any device, keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, possessing unlicensed arms---
Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Consent of Provincial Government for trial of case---
Requirements---Accused objected that consent of the Provincial Government had not been obtained to try the
offence under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, therefore, the trial had been vitiated---Validity---Evidence of the
prosecution witnesses showed that some kind of consent had been acquired from the Provincial Government---If
consent had not been obtained from the Provincial Government and trial was conducted under the Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 before the Anti-Terrorism Court, it was not necessary to obtain such consent as per S. 19(8b) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 19(8b) provided that if the consent or sanction of the appropriate authority, where
required, was not received within 30 days of the submission of the challan in the court, the same would be deemed
to have been given or accorded---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was a special law and would prevail over other laws---
Lack of consent under S. 7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in the present case was of no effect---Appeal against
conviction was dismissed, however the sentence was reduced from imprisonment for fourteen years to ten years.
MUHAMMAD NAEEM VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Benefit of Doubt--TERM
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--384 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--386 ,
Ss. 384, 386 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(k) & 7---Extortion by putting a person in fear of
death or grievous hurt, common intention and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Bhatta,
receiving of---Negotiation between the complainant and culprits about the amount were going on between 10.6.2013
and 12.6.2013; during that period, complainant did not go to the police to inform about the alleged incident---
Complainant gave Bhatta amount on 12.6.2013 at about 6.00 p.m. to the culprits and on the same day at about
10.00 p.m. the culprits were shown to the complainant in lockup---FIR was lodged after the visit of complainant at
the Police Station where the culprits were locked---Complainant recognized one accused only---Weapon of offence
was recovered on the pointation of accused---No evidence was available with the prosecution against the co-
accused---Such circumstances created doubt about the veracity of prosecution story, benefit of which resolved in
favour of accused---Appeal filed by accused, in circumstances, was dismissed, with the modification that the
sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court was reduced to the period already undergone, while the appeal of co-
accused was allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court were set aside.
77 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

death or grievous hurt, common intention and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Omission on
the part of Investigating Officer---Effect---Accused were not arrested in the present case nor they were arrested at
the spot---Victim/brother of complainant did not lodge any complaint against the accused persons---Investigating
Officer had arrested the accused persons only to show his performance before their highups---Accused persons
were already in police custody in some other case and locked up at some other police station---Complainant
recognized accused and weapon of offence was also recovered on the pointation of accused---No evidence against
co-accused was available with the prosecution---Such circumstance had created reasonable doubt about the
veracity of prosecution case, benefit of which resolved in favour of accused---Appeal filed by accused was
dismissed, with the modification that the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court was reduced to the period
already undergone, while the appeal of co-accused was allowed and conviction and sentences recorded by Trial
Court were set aside.
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--384 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--386 ,
death or grievous hurt, common intention and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---
Complainant had alleged that two boys came on bike to collect Bhatta amount of Rs. 80,000---Complainant had only
identified accused but there was no evidence against the co-accused---Recovery was made on the pointation of
accused---Mere presence of the co-accused in the lockup was not sufficient to connect him with the commission of
offence---Appeal by accused was dismissed, with the modification that the sentence awarded to him by the Trial
Court was reduced to the period already undergone, while the appeal of co-accused was allowed and conviction
and sentences recorded by Trial Court were set aside.
1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--384 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--386 , Proof--TERM ,
78 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 384, 386 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(k) & 7---Extortion by putting a person in fear of death
or grievous hurt, common intention and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Bhatta, receiving of---Proof---
Prosecution case was that some persons made a telephone call to the brother of complainant and demanded Rs.
ten lac as Bhatta and were extended threats to kill him in case of non-payment---Case of prosecution hinged around
the evidence of two witnesses---Main victim and star witness of prosecution who received telephone call of alleged
accused persons was not cited as witness---Said victim was never examined at any stage of trial---Complainant had
faced the accused persons but he recognized only one accused---Evidence against the accused was that the
empties which were recovered from the place of incident were fired from the pistol recovered from the possession of
accused---Co-accused was not recognized by the complainant---Testimony of other prosecution witness showed
that he was almost, with the complainant but his evidence was hearsay only received through the complainant---
Appeal filed by accused was dismissed, with the modification that the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court
was reduced to the period already undergone, while the appeal of co-accused was allowed and conviction and
sentences recorded by Trial Court were set aside.
Salman Shahid VS Federation of Pakistan
Ss. 6(2)(f) & (p)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 295-C---Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of Holy Prophet
(p.b.u.h.)---Act of "terrorism"---Scope---
Citation Name: 2017 PLD 55 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case
The STATE through Advocate General of the State of J&K, Muzaffarabad VS MUHAMMAD IDREES JARRAL
2014 PCr.LJ 1512, PLD 1996 SC 241,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--279 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-G , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 ,
S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 337-F(i)(iv), 337-G, 353, 279 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), S.6(2)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing Damiah, Mudihah, hurt by rash or negligent driving, rash
driving, assault or criminal force, common intention---Bail, grant of---During investigation offences under S.324,
P.P.C., and S.6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were added, but later on after investigation same had been deleted by
the Police as no evidence could be recorded in relation to those offences---After completion of evidence challan had
been submitted for the offences under Ss.337-F(i)(iv), 337-G, 353, 279 & 34, P.P.C. and in view of punishment
provided for said offences, case of accused persons did not come within the ambit of prohibited clause of S.497,
Cr.P.C.---Investigation in the case had been completed and challan had been submitted before the Trial Court---
Accused persons were no more required for investigation---Bail in such like cases, was rule and its refusal was an
exception---If the court of competent jurisdiction had released accused on bail, very strong and exceptional grounds
were required to cancel the same---No allegation was on record to the effect that accused persons after the
occurrence had committed any other offence; or they had misused the concession of bail; or they were tampering or
interfering with the prosecution evidence---In absence of exceptional grounds or circumstances, order granting bail
by the Trial Court, did not require any interference by High Court.
79 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

SARDAR ALI VS State
Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--188 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-A , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--298-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--341 ,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 188, 341, 295-A & 298-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 &
7---Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant, wrongful restraint, deliberate and malicious acts
intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, use of derogatory
remarks etc., in respect of holy personages---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused and one hundred other
persons allegedly took out a procession in violation of an agreement with the local administration and chanted
slogans---Contention that no sanction was required for registration of case under S. 295-A Penal Code, 1860 was
misconceived--- Provisions of S. 196, Cr.P.C. were mandatory in nature and non-compliance had brought the case
of accused persons within the compass of further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Bail was granted accordingly.
ASSAD ULLAH VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--19 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-D , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-L , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 19(7)(8), 21-D & 21-
L---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Bail, grant of---No substantial progress had been made towards
conclusion of the trial of the case, even after lapse of over 3 years---Speedy and fair trial was an inherent right of
accused guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as by Part II of Gilgit-Baltistan (Self-Empowerment and
Governance) Order, 2009---Liberty of a person, could not be curtailed, except in accordance with law---Accused
was granted bail.
SHAKEEL AHMED VS State
Ss. 376, 377, 363, 392, 506, 337-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Rape, unnatural offence,
kidnapping, robbery, criminal intimidation, causing Shajjah, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of
evidence---Jurisdiction of special court of terrorism---Transfer of case to ordinary criminal court---Forcible abduction
with intention of committing rape---FIR, containing report of commission of forcible rape---Said offence being of
ordinary nature, trial of the same by ordinary criminal court was sufficient and correct---Trial Court had convicted
accused persons under S.7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without framing any charge for the said offence, which
was an irregularity---Trial Court must have sent the case to ordinary court when accused persons were charge-
sheeted for trial---Conducting of trial by a Special Court, was against all norms of criminal administration of justice
as ordinary courts were competent to try cases of ordinary nature---Impugned order of conviction/ sentence was set
aside and chief court directed the transfer of charge-sheet/ challan of the case to the Court of Session Judge, who
would complete all trial proceedings of accused persons after de novo trial of accused persons---Trial Court would
have to expunge all sections of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
80 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

NADEEM ABBAS VS State
Ss.302, 34 & 376---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, rape, act of
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Occurrence in the case was an unseen one devoid of the
presence of any eye-witness---Prosecution version was that deceased while being unconscious was raped by
accused, but the negative report of Pathologist regarding the presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swabs of the
deceased belied the prosecution version---Medical team was bound to unearth the cause of death and to come up
with accurate and credible findings in that regard, but the exhumation report revealed that the same had been done
in a routine manner---None of the quoted methods had been applied to dig out the truth nor there existed a finding
that the employment of said methods was either not possible or there were any sort of impediments in doing so---
Evidence adduced by the prosecution was barren to such an extent that it was quite incapable of germinating the
seed of conviction in any manner---Motive as alleged by the prosecution saw the light of the day only after accused
persons made confessional statements recorded under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---If for the sake of
argument, the confessional statements of accused persons were considered to be correct despite their legal
infirmity, even then same were not probative enough to yield positive results for the prosecution---"Memory Card",
which laid the foundation of whole transaction, neither was recovered from accused nor any evidence was put forth
by the prosecution regarding the fate of said memory card---Mortar which could have been used to erect the
superstructure of prosecution's case turned into rubbles because of the happy go lucky behaviour shown with
respect to the collection of corroboratory evidence by both the Investigating Officers---Venue of occurrence as
depicted in the site plan, negated prosecution version---Dining hall where the deceased was allegedly hanged was
adjacent to the sleeping room where all the under-training nurses, who were fourteen in number used to sleep---
Testimony of prosecution witness was of vital importance since it unraveled a number of mysterious knots of the
controversy---No last seen evidence was available which could even remotely suggest that the deceased was either
rang up or taken out by co-accused---Chronological sequence of certain happenings which occurred during the
course of investigation and the recoveries effected, also had a telling effect on the prosecution case---Recovery of
pillow; was also of no avail to the prosecution case---If the same was taken to be the weapon of offence, the
exhumation report by virtue of which the Medical Board found ligature marks, dashed down to the ground, because
ligature could be anything used to compress the throat to block the air supply---Evidence of extra-judicial confession
also cut a sorry figure with respect to the case of prosecution---Prosecution which was supposed to prove its case
up to the hilt beyond any shadow of doubt, had failed to do so---Thick mist of doubt was looming over the
prosecution case---No reliance could be placed on the evidence produced by the prosecution---All accused persons
were acquitted of the charge extending them benefit of doubt and they were ordered to be released forthwith, in
circumstances.
81 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Trial Court had nowhere in the impugned judgment
incorporated/entrusted the motive of the offence---Police had claimed recovery of a video of accused having sexual
intercourse with the deceased, but same was neither found to be placed on record nor witness was produced in
support of recovery memo, rather he was abandoned---Prosecution had also failed to prove sexual assault by
accused with the dead body of the deceased---Prosecution had failed to include the names of the persons to whom
accused handed over the mobile phone of the deceased lady, nor the contents of the record of messages were
verified/confronted before the Trial Court---Statement of the sole witness trainee, who was sleeping in hostel at night
of the occurrence with the other inmates, created serious doubts on the story of the prosecution---Prosecution had
failed to interlink the chain of corroboration/circumstantial evidence in the case and the chain of circumstantial
evidence from taking of the possession of mobile phone to their numbers and the ownership, usage and the calls,
messages received through other mobile phone to that of the alleged murder of deceased lady, was not
established---Prosecution had failed to connect to the extent of co-accused in commission of alleged offence---
Benefit of doubts, was extended to accused---Impugned judgment of the Trial Court was set aside, accused were
acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith, in circumstances.
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Occurrence being unseen, there was no eye-witness---Only evidence against
accused persons was circumstantial evidence and second medical report, which contradicted the first medical report
on very crucial aspects of the occurrence---Evidence on record regarding messages and calls between accused and
the deceased, had shown that accused had connection with the deceased---Trial Court had wrongly relied on
confessional statement of accused persons as same had been recorded by the Police Officer, though judicial
Magistrates were conveniently available---Only piece of evidence, which could not be ignored, was the second
medical report---Doctors conducted the said second report on the dead body of deceased after exhuming the same
from the tomb where deceased was buried---Prosecution had established the facts that the dead body which was
subjected to the second post-mortem was of the deceased---Prosecution evidence comprised the second medical
report and post-mortem report---Comparative study of both the reports, had shown that the first report was very
short and summary, while the second medical report contained all necessary details that correctly related to the
opinion of the Board of Doctors---First report was prepared without internal examination of the dead body of
deceased, while the second report showed through examination of different internal parts of the body of deceased---
Opinion of the Board of Doctors had shown that deceased received injuries at different parts of her body before she
was murdered---Opinion of the doctors of the Board, very clearly contradicted the first medical report regarding the
causes of death of the deceased---Court relied on the second medical report and held that the Trial Court had
correctly relied on the same---Second medical report was correct and cause of death of the deceased was her
murder by accused persons and not because of any suicide etc.---Sentence/conviction passed by the Trial Court,
were upheld and appeals were dismissed---Murder Reference also answered affirmatively.
ZAKIR HUSSAIN VS State
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 ,
82 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 6(1)(b)---Act of terrorism---Scope---If after the commission of an act, a wave of terror strikes the society, it is more
than sufficient to attract the provision of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Terror or fear was a state of mind which keeps
one's mind under the continuous apprehension of being insecure.
MEHBOOB VS State
S. 13---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Possessing unlicensed arms---Act of terrorism---Appreciation
of evidence---Trial Court did not base the impugned order on any prosecution evidence and instead based the same
on compromise that accused effected with the legal heirs of deceased and injured persons---Two occurrences were
reported through two different FIRs., which were quite distinct and different in nature---Many offences were not
compoundable---Court was passionate in accepting the compromise and acquitted accused and his co-accused,
even from the offences which were not compoundable---Compromise in the main occurrence was not a sufficient
proof of guilt of accused---Trial Court had adopted his own style of convicting and sentencing accused; instead of
following the relevant law of evidence; which mandatorily required recording of prosecution evidence for basing all
judgment/orders of conviction---Order of conviction/ sentence, without recording evidence or admission of accused,
was a display of alarming attitude of Judicial Officer---Appeal was allowed holding that impugned order was fit to be
set aside to the extent of said accused.
MUHAMMAD TARIQ VS State
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-H---Qatl-
i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---No evidence worth reliance was
available against accused, either direct or circumstantial, except a statement under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 and statement of co-accused against him and abscondance of accused---Mere abscondence and statement of
co-accused against accused could not be made a ground for refusal of bail, if the ingredients of a prima facie case
were lacking---Case of accused being one of further inquiry falling under S.497(2), Cr.P.C., accused was released
on bail, in circumstances.
NAVEED AKHTAR alias JANI VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-H , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-L , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act
83 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 21-H & 21-L---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of
terrorism---Case was that of no eye-witness and the whole prosecution case was based on the alleged dying
declaration of the deceased made before the complainant/ father of the deceased and Investigating Officer---
Prosecution had failed to connect the involvement of accused in commission of offence---Whole material collected
by the prosecution, was in support of its case, including that of the confessional statement of accused recorded
under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which had clearly shown that murder of the deceased was committed by
co-accused, whose name was not mentioned in column No.1 without any reason---Self-destructive statements of
the complainant and prosecution witness/ Investigating Officer, could not be safely relied in the peculiar
circumstances of the case---Autopsy report, coupled with the statement of the doctor, who conducted post mortem
of the deceased, had confirmed that nature of injuries was such in which it was highly improbable for the person to
talk---Prosecution having failed to prove the charges levelled against accused, impugned judgment of the Trial Court
was set aside and accused was directed to be released, in circumstances.
ATTA-UR-RAHMAN VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 353, 186, 224 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 &
7---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty,
obstructing public servant to discharge of public functions, resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful
apprehension, common intention---Act of terrorism---Bail, refusal of---Accused persons, were directly charged in the
FIR, and they were arrested red-handed after chase and encounter with the Police and Law Enforcing Agencies---
One Army Jawan was injured because of the firing opened by one of the accused---Weapons of offence, had also
been recovered from the accused persons; and motorbike which was used in commission of offence by accused
persons, was also taken into possession---Other accused was privy to the offence, and had shared intention with
two of his co-accused---Bail could not be granted to said accused---Petition being meritless was dismissed, in
circumstances.
State VS AIN ALI SHAH
S. 497 (5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A, 324, 147, 145, 149, 502(2) & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Terrorism, hurt, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, joining or continuing in unlawful assembly
knowing it had been commanded to disperse, unlawful assembly, sale of printed or engraved substance containing
defamatory matter, abetment---Application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail---One of the accused was allowed bail
before arrest by the Trial Court, which was later on confirmed---State being aggrieved by the said order moved bail
cancellation application before Chief Court which was later on withdrawn---Counsel for complainant conceded the
same and could not point out any illegality in the order, which could persuade to exercise discretion in favour of the
State---Once bail was granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, very strong and exceptional grounds were
required to withdraw the same---Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed accordingly.
84 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

SHER JAN VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 224---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6/7---Qatl-i-amd,
attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, act of terrorism---
Bail, grant of---Rule of consistency---Accused alleged that he was in judicial lockup for the last five years without any
progress in the trial---Co-accused of the present accused with similar role had been released on bail and his case
was at par with said co-accused---Validity---FIR had been lodged promptly but none was charged therein---Accused
was arrested on 5.11.2011 and was still behind the bars without any substantial progress in the trial---Co-accused
had been admitted to bail and the case of accused was at par with his co-accused---Principle of consistency was
fully attracted in the present case---Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
MUHAMMAD ALAM VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 109, 114 & 34---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Qatl-
i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention, act of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Rule of
consistency---Prosecution case was that the accused along with co-accused made firing on complainant party, due
to which, three persons died and one was seriously injured---Co-accused with similar role had been released on bail
and his case was at par with said co-accused---Validity---Law required that all the persons placed in similar situation
would be treated alike---Co-accused had been admitted to bail; rule of consistency was attracted in the case of
petitioner and he was also entitled for the same treatment---Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
ABDUL MANAN VS State
Ss. 498 & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 435, 436, 427, 447, 147 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred
rupees or (In case of agricultural produce) ten rupees, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy
house, etc., mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, criminal trespass, rioting, unlawful assembly,
terrorism---Bail, confirmation of---Further inquiry---Accused were directly charged in FIR but no specific allegations
were levelled against the accused persons---Allegations of putting the house and wood on fire were general in
nature, as presence of thousands of people had been mentioned by the complainant in FIR---Present accused
whether actively participated in the occurrence or had been named in FIR only being the ring leader was a question
which required further inquiry---Bail before arrest allowed to accused persons was confirmed accordingly.
ARIF ULLAH VS State
85 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 223, 224, 225, 109, 353, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.
6 & 7---Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant, resistance or obstruction by a
person to his lawful apprehension, resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, abetment,
assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common
intention, terrorism---Bail, grant of---Accused were behind the bars over one and a half years without any substantial
progress in trial---Police report had shown that accused were not involved in abetment/planning of escape, rather
due to their negligence the high profile prisoners managed their escape---Accused persons were government
servants and there was no chance of their abscondance or tampering with the prosecution evidence---Case of bail
had been made out---Bail was granted accordingly.
JAWAHIR KHAN VS State
Ss. 6, 7& 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 353, 454, 506(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd,
assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking
in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, criminal intimidation, act of terrorism---"Terrorism"---
Scope---Application under S. 23, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of case to regular court from Anti-Terrorism
Court---Dismissal of application---Validity---FIR was promptly lodged within ten minutes of the occurrence which
contained real and natural narration of occurrence---Action which involved serious question or intimidation of public
servants in order to force them to discharge or to refrain from discharging them lawful duties fell within the scope
and spirit of "terrorism"---Accused by his barbaric and gruesome act took the life of an innocent person and injured
two other employees of Public Works Department which created a wave of terror not only in the society but also
amongst a section of people, public servants and employees of the department---Case was fully covered under S.
6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, petition for transfer was dismissed being meritless.
Citation Name: 2016 GBLR 315 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case
State VS IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN
86 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 436, 435, 427, 448, 353, 147, 149 & 337---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of
1979), S.17---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 21-H & 21-I---Mischief by fire or explosive substance with
intent to destroy house, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage, mischief causing
damage to the amount of fifty rupees, house-trespass, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from
discharge of his duty, rioting, common object, causing shajjah, haraabah, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of
evidence---Out of twelve directly named persons with the same role attributed in the FIR, Police had discharged and
released ten persons under S. 169, Cr.P.C., which had demolished the prosecution story at the investigation stage---
Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, actually and factually was based on S.149, P.P.C., and accused
persons had been declared to be convicted as they were members of an alleged unlawful assembly, but the Trial
Court did not look at the evidence on record as well as law for making an arguable foundation---Case file, did not
contain any kind of evidence or even allegation that accused persons pre-planned to make an unlawful assembly
with a common object to commit the specific criminal acts as charged---Accused, were neither charge-sheeted
under S.149, P.P.C., in a specific way nor any evidence was produced before the Trial Court to prove and
substantiate the ingredients of S.149, P.P.C., which had defeated the rights available to accused persons---
Judgment of conviction under cover and domain of S.149, P.P.C., by imposing the constructive liability in a case of
unproved charges had caused prejudice and injustice to accused persons---Prosecution did not produce even a
single independent person as witness hailing from the locality or even a non-partisan, non-interested private person,
despite about 700/800 persons were reported to be present at the place of occurrence---Trial Court, while convicting
accused, had relied upon Police Officials, who were neither named in the FIR nor they could be treated as eye-
witnesses in the eye of law---Attack on Police Station by the mob must have resulted injuries to several Police
Officials, but no Medico-legal Certificate about nature of injuries had been placed before the Trial Court---Statement
of eye-witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., had been recorded after a delay of 9 to 47 days, without any explanation for
such delay---Nothing was recovered from accused persons---Alleged recovery of weapons and the cartridges from
accused persons had been made after a delay of 7, 8, 17 and 82 days of the occurrence respectively---Prosecution
had demolished its case by not making the Police Officials as eye-witnesses who were specifically named by the
complainant in FIR---Appeal was dismissed and judgment passed by the Chief Court was upheld and accused stood
acquitted.
State VS IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN
Ss. 436, 435, 427, 448, 353, 147, 149 & 337---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of
1979), S.17---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 21-H & 21-I---Mischief by fire or explosive substance with
intent to destroy house, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage, mischief causing
damage to the amount of fifty rupees, house-trespass, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from
discharge of his duty, rioting, common object, causing shajjah, haraabah, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of
evidence---Prosecution had proved its case against all accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt by producing
ocular evidence, circumstantial evidence, confessional statements of accused persons, recoveries on the pointation
of accused persons, medical evidence coupled with the absconsion of accused persons---Trial Court had rightly
convicted and sentenced accused persons, who had caused heavy loss to the Government Exchequer by putting on
fire the Police Station and two Government vehicles---Accused persons had taken the arms and ammunitions from
the Malkhana of Police Station and were responsible for the damages caused to Government property---Supreme
Appellate Court directed that costs of all the damages be recovered from the accused persons as an arrear of land
revenue and deposited into the Government Treasury.
87 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Mir SHAKEEL-UR-REHMAN VS The STATE OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN
Ss. 295-A, 298-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-
Governance) Order, 2009, S. 95---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.403---Deliberation and malicious acts
intended to outrage religion feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, use of derogatory
remarks in respect of Holy personages, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Double
jeopardy---Accused persons were prosecuted almost in all the four provinces of Pakistan; most of the cases
registered on the same set of allegations, same set of fact and the same set of evidence and many of the FIRs had
been quashed; in two cases accused were acquitted---No body could be prosecuted and punished twice for the
same offence in violation of Fundamental Rights of accused persons---Provisions of Art.13(a) of Constitution of
Pakistan, read with Art.95 of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 and S. 403, Cr.P.C.,
as well as S.26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, were fully attracted in the case---Order accordingly.
HALEEMA SADIA VS SHAKEEL AHMED
Ss. 376, 377, 363, 392, 506, 337-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Rape, unnatural offence,
kidnapping, robbery, criminal intimidation, causing Shajjah, common intention, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of
evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account furnished by one of the prosecution witnesses fully corroborated
the statements of other prosecution witnesses---Forensic, Serological Examination Report, also corroborated the
confessional statements of accused persons---Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused
persons---Accused persons were alleged to have abducted the victim girl for committing gang rape which had
created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public generally and among girls students particularly---Commission of
such offence by accused persons, created the sense of insecurity in the society---Said offence was triable under the
special law and the Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly tried the case and convicted accused persons by appreciating
the evidence on record---Impugned judgment passed by Chief Court was set aside, whereas the judgment passed
by Anti-Terrorism Court was upheld and conviction and sentences so awarded were maintained---Death sentence
awarded to accused persons was reduced to life imprisonment.

State VS BILAL AHMED
88 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 221, 222, 223, 224 & 225---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 21-I & 21-L---Intentional omission to
apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend, escape from confinement or custody negligently
suffered by public servant, resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, resistance or
obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Court competent
to try case---Provisions of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not attracted and applicable to the case---
Chief Court had rightly held that the case was triable under the ordinary jurisdiction of the competent court of law i.e.
the Sessions Court---Advocate-General, could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment,
which was well reasoned and well founded---Impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court was affirmed---
Sessions Court was required to hear and dispose the case on merits---Order accordingly.
NAVEED HUSSAIN VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd,
abetment, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Trial Court, convicted accused,
but acquitted the co-accused by giving him benefit of doubt, despite the said co-accused was found fully involved in
making the accused escaped from the jail---Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused and the
acquitted co-accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Counsel for accused could not point out any illegality and
infirmity in concurrent judgments passed by two courts below to the extent of accused---Judgments by the both
courts below were maintained to the extent of accused by the Supreme Appellate Court---Murder reference was
confirmed---Supreme Appellate Court to meet the ends of justice and in view of material on record, issued show-
cause notice to the acquitted co-accused to appear in person or through his duly briefed counsel to explain as to
why he be not convicted and sentenced in the case in accordance with law---Order accordingly.
WAZIR VS State
S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, act of
terrorism, possessing unlicensed arm---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Life imprisonment
awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was reduced to 14 years imprisonment by the Chief Court, while maintaining
other sentences awarded by the Trial Court---Recoveries of crime, were neither sent to the Arms Expert for
verification, nor same were exhibited---Recovery witnesses had turned hostile---Autopsy report was not produced in
the Trial Court---Evidence of the eye-witnesses of the case, were contradictory in nature---State did not move
revision for enhancement of sentence of accused persons---Eye-witness had admitted that the deceased was a
weak and unhealthy person and his wife resided with him; whereas other eye-witness who was close relative of the
deceased was an interested witness---Said witness was not present, and had not seen the alleged firing upon the
deceased by accused persons, which had created serious doubts in the prosecution case---Prosecution had failed
to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt---Judgment, by the Chief Court was set aside
by Supreme Appellate Court and accused persons were ordered to be released forthwith.
89 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

SAGHEER AHMED VS State
S. 6(2)(k)---Extortion of money (bhatta)---Anti-Terrorism court, jurisdiction of---Scope---In absence of any tangible

material, mere allegation of demanding Bhatta did not attract S. 6(2)(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Averments of
FIR in the present case were silent regarding the financial status and source of income of the complainant against
which accused had been demanding 'bhatta'---Complainant had also not disclosed the specific dates, times and
places of demanding 'bhatta' by accused persons nor any such evidence was produced before the Investigating
Officer to prima facie establish such allegations---Cumulative effect of the averments of FIR, surrounding
circumstances and other material available on record showed that the offence had been committed on account of
previous enmity with a definite motive---Alleged offence occurred at a bridge, which was not situated in any
populated area, consequently, the allegations of aerial firing did not appear to be a case of "terrorism" as the motive
for the alleged offence was nothing but personal enmity and private vendetta---Intention of the accused party did not
depict or manifest any act of terrorism as contemplated by the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Consequently complainant had failed to produce any material before the Investigating Officer to establish
that at the time of occurrence sense of fear, panic, terror and insecurity spread in the area---Anti-Terrorism Court did
not have the jurisdiction to hear the present case---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
KASHIF ALI VS The JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM, COURT NO.II, LAHORE
S. 6---"Terrorism"---Scope---To determine the question as to whether an offence fell within the meaning of
"terrorism"---It would be essential to have a glance over the allegations levelled in the FIR, the material collected by
the Investigating agency and the surrounding circumstances, depicting the commission of offence---Whether a
particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or purpose behind the act had to be
seen---Term "design" as used in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which had given a wider scope to the
jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Courts excluded the intent or motive of the accused---Motive and intent had lost
their relevance in a case under S.6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---What was essential to attract the mischief of
said section was the object for which the act was designed.
S.6---Term "design" as used in S.6---Definition.
90 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

PLD 2005 SC 530,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code
Ss. 6 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---"Terrorism"---Scope---Target killing of a rival candidate
for election of Provincial Assembly---Whether such offence fell within the meaning of "terrorism"---Transfer of case
to Anti-Terrorism Court---FIR stated that the accused party chased the complainant party in order to execute the
murderous plan conceived in their minds; it was a pre-planned scheme and to execute the same, the accused party
chased the vehicles of the deceased and opened fire due to which four persons lost their lives and several others
sustained firearm injuries---Accused persons conceived a plan in their mind prior to the occurrence to disrupt the
electoral process by eliminating the deceased-candidate and his companions, and subsequently executed it---Target
killing was aimed to give a message to the voters and supporters of the deceased, the effect of which was to create
a sense of fear or insecurity in the voters and general public, as provided in S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Place of occurrence was a public place and supporters and voters were around with their cars---
Furthermore, the contents of the FIR reflected that the crowd present during the occurrence started fleeing from the
place due to the terror created by indiscriminate firing---Contention of the accused party that the incident was a
result of personal enmity would not exclude the case from the mischief of S. 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
because the manner in which the incident had taken place and the time of occurrence should be taken note of, the
effect of which was to strike terror in the supporters/voters and general public---Personal enmity between the
deceased and the accused side could have been settled on any day and it was intriguing as to why the accused
persons chose the particular night before the dawn of the day of elections to settle their score with a popular running
candidate/deceased in the elections by eliminating him---Sudden murder of the deceased, on the night before the
election day, not just with a single bullet but with indiscriminate firing on him and his companions was something that
had to be all over the news and media channels for weeks to come---Voters were mentally disturbed to know that on
the day of the polling their chosen candidate was no longer alive, which was a foreseeable and inevitable impact of
the action by the accused persons---Present incident was not a sudden reaction to a provocation but a premeditated
act, where accused persons found out the precise location of the deceased- candidate on the very busy night before
the election day, and got him murdered---Accused persons had sent a message to the general public conveying the
lethal consequences of any opposition to them---Supreme Court converted the petition into appeal and transferred
the present case to the concerned Anti-Terrorism Court for further proceedings in accordance with law---Appeal was
allowed accordingly---Basharat Ali v. Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala PLD 1004 Lah. 199
overruled.
Ss. 6 & 12---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Where the action of an accused results in striking terror, or
creating fear, panic sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in a particular vicinity it
amounted to terror and such an action squarely fell within the ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and shall
be tried by the Special Court constituted for such a purpose---Courts were only required to see whether the terrorist
act was such that it would have the tendency to create sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the people or any
section of the society, as well as the psychological impact created on the mind of the society.
91 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Malik MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ QADRI VS State
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 ,
S. 6(1)(b)---Act of terrorism---Determination as to whether an offence constituted an act of terrorism---Provisions of

S.6(1)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 quite clearly contemplated creation of a sense of fear or insecurity in the
society as a design behind the action and it was immaterial whether that design was actually fulfilled or not and any
sense of fear or insecurity was in fact created in the society as a result of the action or not---Specified action
accompanied by the requisite intention, design or purpose constituted the offence of "terrorism" under S.6 of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the actual fall out of the action had nothing to do with determination of the nature of
offence.
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-C ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Reappraisal of evidence--TERM ,
Ss. 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c), 6(2)(a) & 7(a)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.295-C & 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---
Reappraisal of evidence---Act of terrorism---Scope---Actus reus and mens rea for committing an act of terrorism---
Murder of a Provincial Governor to intimidate the public or create a sense of fear or insecurity in the society---
Accused, while performing his duty as the official guard of the deceased-Provincial Governor, fired at and killed the
latter---Alleged justification provided by the accused for the murder was that the deceased had committed
blasphemy---Action of accused involved firing at the deceased and thereby causing his death and, thus, his actus
reus fell within the ambit of S.6(2)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---As regards the accused's mens rea he had
himself stated in his statement before the Trial Court under S.342, Cr.P.C. that the murder of deceased was "a
lesson for all the apostates, as finally they have to meet the same fate"---Such statement of the accused clearly
established that he not only wanted to punish the deceased privately for the perceived or imagined blasphemy
committed by him but also wanted to send a message or teach a lesson to all others in the society at large who
dared to follow the deceased---In such circumstances the causing of death of deceased by the accused was surely
designed to intimidate or overawe the public or a section of the public or to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the
society so as to attract the requisite mens rea contemplated by S.6(1)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Apart from
that it could not be seriously contested that the accused had committed the murder of deceased for the purpose of
advancing a religious cause and, thus, even the mens rea contemplated by S.6(1)(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
stood fully attracted to the case of the accused---Action of the accused in killing the deceased and the intention,
design or purpose behind such action fully attracted the definition of "terrorism" contained in S.6 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 and, therefore, he was correctly and justifiably sentenced to death by the Trial Court under
S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for committing the offence of terrorism---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
KHUDA-E-NOOR VS State
92 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c) & 6(2)(g)---Honour killing "Act of terrorism"---Act of honour killing would amount to "terrorism"
only if accompanied by the design or purpose contemplated in S.6(1)(b) & (c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Case
of private motive committed in the privacy of a home with no design or purpose contemplated by S.6(1)(b) or (c) of
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would not amount to an act of terrorism thus triable by a court of ordinary jurisdiction.
KHUDA-E-NOOR VS State
PLD 2012 Bal. 22,
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Mens rea--TERM ,
Ss. 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c) & 6(2)---Act of terrorism---Mens rea---Act accompanied by a 'design' or 'purpose'---Any action
falling within any of the categories of cases mentioned in S.6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could not be
accepted or termed as "terrorism" unless the said action was accompanied by a "design" or "purpose" specified in
S.6(1)(b) or (c) of the said Act---Provisions of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which defined "terrorism" clearly
showed that the said section was divided into two main parts, i.e. the first part contained in S.6(1)(b) and (c) of the
said Act dealing with the mens rea mentioning the "design" or the "purpose" behind an action and the second part
falling in S.6(2) of the said Act specifying the actions which, if coupled with the mens rea (i.e. design or purpose) ,
would constitute the offence of "terrorism", held not to be correct law.
SHAHBAZ KHAN alias Tippu VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.3, LAHORE
Ss. 6 & 12---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances of the
case could be interpreted in order to ascertain whether the case fell within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
SHAHBAZ KHAN alias Tippu VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.3, LAHORE
1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Reappraisal of evidence--TERM ,
93 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b) & 12---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149---Brutal killing of unarmed persons on
a public street by indiscriminate firing---Reappraisal of evidence---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---
Motive/intention/mens rea for an offence---Natural and inevitable consequences of acts of an accused deemed to be
intended by him---Accused persons acting on the instructions of co-accused killed five people on a public street---
Motive for the occurrence was a property dispute between co-accused and complainant party---Accused persons
contended that the murders were triggered by a private property dispute; that there was no design to intimidate or
overawe the public or create sense of fear or insecurity in the society within the meaning of S.6(1)(b) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, thus, the Anti-Terrorism Court did not have jurisdiction to try the case---Anti-Terrorism Court
transferred the case for trial to Sessions Court exercising ordinary criminal jurisdiction---High Court ordered trial of
offence by an Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---When wanton overt acts committed by an accused lead to horrendous
consequences then the motive given in the FIR merely indicated the background---Presumption that the natural and
inevitable consequences of the acts of an accused were deemed to be intended, provided a reliable touchstone for
gathering the design, intention or mens rea of an assailant in the context of S.6(1)(b) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---In
the present case, dispute about the possession of a property exploded disproportionately to a scale depicting
wanton ruthlessness and impunity in the multiple killing of victims in a public place inhabited by public residents---
Motive of a domestic family property dispute was merely the spark that triggered the occurrence---When determining
the design, intention and mens rea of accused persons in the present case, the principle was that they were
deemed to intend the natural and inevitable consequences of their actions ---Three ingredients of the offence of
"terrorism" under S.6(1)(a) & (b) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were, firstly, taking of action specified in S.6(2) of the
said Act; secondly, that action was committed with design, intention and mens rea; and thirdly, it had the impact of
causing intimidation, awe, fear and insecurity in the public or society---In relation to the present case firstly, the place
of occurrence where five persons had been killed was spread over different spots on a public street in the locality of
the disputed property---Houses lined both sides of the street where members of the public resided---Secondly, the
five murders were a result of unchecked, indiscriminate and random shooting that hit the fleeing victims in front of
different houses on the street---Thirdly, the persons attributed lethal firing by the prosecution were neither alleged to
nor personally nurtured the stated private motive narrated in the FIR---Accused persons were gunmen on a job
impervious to the consequences of their actions, and prima facie, they executed the instructions given by the co-
accused---Fourthly, the occurrence took place within the sight and the earshot of the persons from the public who
resided in the locality---Brutal killing of five unarmed persons on a public street would have stricken panic, fear and
insecurity among the residents in the locality---All ingredients under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, that constituted
the offence of terrorism were prima facie available in the present case---High Court had rightly ordered trial of
accused persons by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
KABIR SHAH VS The STATE through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
94 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss.302(b), 376 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(c) & 7---Act of terrorism, qatl-i-amd, rape, common
intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Complainant was not the eye-witness of the occurrence, but
he charged accused person on the second day of the report after due satisfaction---Complainant had not disclosed
the source of information---Many people were present on the spot, when the dead body was recovered, but none of
them had been cited as witness, nor produced in support of recovery of corpus---No body from the neighbour or any
relative had come forward to record his statement to support the story advanced by prosecution---Facts narrated by
the complainant were based on hearsay; and that too from undisclosed sources, which could hardly be based for
capital punishment---Occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as described by the prosecution---
Both accused persons in their confessional statements had contradicted each other regarding timings of
occurrence---confessional statement of accused persons, had been recorded on a printed form/questionnaire---
Same would be mere formality---Only 30 minutes time had been given to accused for thinking over and making
confession, which was too short---Confessional statement was also retracted by accused during the trial, which
could not be based as a ground for conviction of accused, unless same was corroborated by strong corroborative
piece of evidence---Medical evidence also did not support the prosecution story---Place of occurrence had already
been visited by the Investigating Officer, in presence of complainant; and after alleged pointing nothing incriminating
had been recovered from the said place---Trial Court had convicted accused on the basis of circumstantial
evidence, but all pieces of said evidence were so weak and scattered that no piece could be connected with the
other---Case was based on no legal evidence, or evidence of no legal consequence---Genesis and origin of the
occurrence appeared to be shrouded in deep mystery---In view of the inherent improbabilities, serious omissions
and infirmities, prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused---Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the Trial Court, was set aside, accused was acquitted of the charges against them and were released, in
circumstances.
MUHAMMAD FAIZAN alias FAIZI VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 ,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Court--Term , Jurisdiction--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--376 ,
Ss. 6, 7, 12, 23 & 25---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 376(2)---Rape---Forum of trial---Anti-Terrorism Court---
Jurisdiction---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
ZAHIR SHAH VS MUHAMMAD SHER KHAN, SHO PS MIRIAN
PLD 1995 Pesh. 106,
95 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--Fourth Sch , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--Third Sche , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013--15 , Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013--3 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--186 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--506 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--71 , Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979--3 , Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order
1979--4 , The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Explosives Substances Act 2013--15-AA , The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Explosives
Substances Act 2013--5 ,
S. 497(2)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Explosive Substances Act (XXV of 2013), Ss. 15-AA & 5---Prohibition
(Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), Ss. 3(i)(a)(iv)
& 15(e)--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 506, 186 & 71---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(ee), 7(ff) &
Third and Fourth Sched.---Making or possession of explosives under suspicious circumstances; manufacture etc. of
intoxicants; owning or possessing intoxicants; obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions; criminal
intimidation, unlicensed possession of arms and terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Kalashnikov with loaded
magazines, a .30 bore pistol with magazines, three hand grenades and eight plastic drums containing 240 liters of
wine were alleged to have been recovered from possession of the accused---Additional Sessions Judge refused bail
after arrest on ground that offences in question were exclusively triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Offence of
unlawful possession of explosives as defined under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, fell within S. 6(2)(ee) of the said Act,
which was punishable under S. 7(ff) of the Act, wherein, punishment provided would not be less than 14 years, but
the same might extend to imprisonment for life---Accused, however, had not been charged under S. 7(ff) of the said
Act---Offences mentioned in Item 4 of the Third Sched. of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would be exclusively triable by
the Anti-Terrorism Court, but mere having any unlawful explosives was not included in Item 4 of the Third Sched.---
Offences, allegedly committed by the accused, did not occupy any place within the purview of the Item 4 of the Third
Schedule---Section 3(i)(a)(vi) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 included grenade within the definition of
ammunition---Explosive grenades were not directly recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused, nor on
his pointation---Search of the joint house of the accused, from where the explosive substances etc. were allegedly
recovered, had not been made in presence of private witnesses---Mere recovery of any alleged explosive
substance, without expert opinion, would not withhold the concession of bail---High Court could not bypass the
provisions of S. 71, P.P.C., under which there was likelihood, that the accused, even if found guilty, would be
extended the benefit of said section, which made present case one of further inquiry, as no other offence committed
by the accused fell within the prohibition clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application was accepted accordingly.
TAHIR JAVED KHAN VS State
2012 PCr.LJ 1735,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--13 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--17 , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--21-G , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism
Act 1997--Third Sche , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
96 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 21-G, 23, Third Sched.---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 109---Qatl-i-amd common
object---Object of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Transfer of case to ordinary court---Scope---Occurrence had taken
place within the premises of the court, while both the parties had appeared in connection with their cases, which
were fixed on the day of occurrence---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had been brought for two fold purposes; on the one
hand, the Act provided for prevention of terrorism and sectarian violence; and, on the other hand, the same was for
speedy trial of heinous offences and also for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto---Section 6 of the
Act had provided that the offences which fell within the ambit of terrorism, but the object of S. 13 of the Act could
also not be bypassed---Anti-Terrorism Court was empowered to try any other offence than the scheduled offence,
with which the accused might, under Penal Code be charged at the same trial, in terms of S. 17 of the Act---Section
21-G of the Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the Anti-Terrorism Court with regard to trial of cases falling
within the ambit of the Act---In view of S. 23 of the Act, where, after taking cognizance of an offence, Anti-Terrorism
Court was of the opinion that the offence was not a scheduled offence, the Court, notwithstanding that it had no
jurisdiction in view of S. 193, Cr.P.C to try such offence, would transfer the case for trial of such offence to any court
having jurisdiction under Cr.P.C; but there would be definite conclusion and reasons for transferring the case and if it
was not a scheduled offence---Anti-Terrorism Court not only had the exclusive jurisdiction of trial of offences
committed under any provision of the Act, but the court also had to try all other scheduled offences---Offences
mentioned in item 4 of Third Schedule of the Act, being heinuous offences, would also be exclusively triable by the
Anti-Terrorism Court---One person, in the present case, had been murdered while he was attending his case within
the compound of the court, which, being a scheduled offence, was exclusively triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---
High Court, setting aside the order of transfer, ordered the case to be returned to the Anti-Terrorism Court---
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2016 YLR 2702 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD ABBAS VS SPECIAL JUDGE ATC
2007 SCMR 142, 2012 SCMR 59, PLD 1998 SC 1445,
S. 6---"Terrorism" or "terrorist act", components of---'Purpose', 'motivation', 'actus reus' and 'mens rea', would
constitute the components of "terrorism" or "an act of terrorism"---Action designed to coerce and intimidate or
overawe the government or the public or section of public or community or sector, if such an action was designed to
create a sense of fear or insecurity---Society in the backdrop of religious, sectarian or ethnic cause, would constitute
an act of terrorism or terrorist act---Private crime resulting into fear or insecurity as a by-product, a fall-out or an
unintended consequence of fright etc., could not be termed as an act of terrorism---Mere gravity, heinousness,
gruesomeness or shocking nature of any offence, committed in pursuance of personal enmity or in settlement of
personal vendetta, could not by itself sufficient to brand such a crime as a terrorist act or an act of terrorism.
MUHAMMAD ABBAS VS SPECIAL JUDGE ATC
2012 SCMR 59, PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2004 Lah. 199,
97 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6 & 23---"Act of terrorism"---Transfer of case to the court of ordinary/regular jurisdiction---Case of accused
person, was far lesser in severity and grievousness than that of the terrorists or sectarian criminals, who killed the
innocent persons for none of their fault, only to threaten; and defeat the writ of the State, or to cause damage to
other sect---Miscreants, the saboteurs or the terrorists did not have any personal grudge or motive against those,
whom they targeted either by exploding some device or by immolating themselves, or by any other means, so as to
shatter the prevailing peace, and tranquility in the society or to render the masses insecure---Mind-set of such
persons was only to do maximum damage to the society or to a section of the society, so as to weaken the State or
over-awe the government---Offence alleged against accused was necessarily a fall-out of the motive alleged in the
FIR, according to which previous squabbling as to the insult of the children, led to the said human loss---Present
case looked to be of private motive and settlement of personal vengeance, having been committed without any
intent to creating sense of fear or insecurity in the society, or a section of society, or to public at large, nor it was
designed to coerce or intimidate, or overawe the government, or the public or section of a particular community, or
sector fanning out religious, sectarian or ethnic ill-will or hatred---Nexus had to be shown between the act done and
the objective or design by which said offence was committed; so as to formulate a finding, that said offence
constituted an act of terrorism---Offence committed in the background of personal enmity, though having transmitted
a wave of terror or fright was not necessarily an act of terrorism---Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly observed
in the impugned order that the occurrence alleged against accused did not reflect any act of terrorism, as it was
committed in the backdrop of previous animosity between the parties---Complainant himself had introduced the
factum of previous heart-burning and rivalry between the parties in the FIR, which led to the unfortunate incident,
which in circumstances could not be declared a "terrorist act"---Impugned order passed by Judge Anti-Terrorism
Court, could not be interfered with, in circumstances.
BILAL FAROOQ VS State
2002 SCMR 908, 2012 SCMR 517,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--302 , Qatl-e-amd--Term ,
Ss. 6(b) & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Act of
terrorism---Qatl-i-amd---Deceased was a student nurse who was raped by doctor (since absconder) and others and
then she was murdered---Trial Court declined to transfer case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of planery
jurisdiction---Validity---Rape was committed in a room of hospital at night but its detail was shocking which created
either a sense of insecurity, especially amongst nurses as a whole or it was likely to terrorize them---Absconded
accused and his co-accused including petitioner were taken-over by their criminal and lecherous self and they
joined hands satanically to ravish and murder a poor staff nurse---Appalling savagery of crime allegedly committed
by them was not an ordinary incident---Accused doctor was a trusted companion, who played false and stabbed in
the back---As such the same had shocked and jolted staff nurses all over---Ferocity of alleged offence must have
emitted shock waves and signals of unknown fear, dislodging their mental peace with feeling of insecurity and
vulnerability---Trial was being conducted by Court established under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in a lawful manner---
High Court declined to interefere in the order passed by Trial Court as there was no jurisdictional defect---Petition
was dismissed in circumstance.
98 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

RABNAWAZ VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, SARGODHA
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--34 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--Third Sche , Constitutional
petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--336-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--336-B , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--34 ,
Ss. 6, 34 & Third Sched., Para No.4(iv)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.336-A, 336-B & 34---Constitution of
Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Hurt caused by corrosive substance, common intention---Transfer of
case to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Principles---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Scope and
determination---"Terrorism," meaning of---"Corrosive substances", definition of---Accused was alleged to have
thrown acid on son of complainant, due to which he suffered damage on different parts of body---Anti-Terrorism
Court on application of accused, transferred case to court of ordinary jurisdiction on ground that alleged incident
was result of personal motive, and there was no intention on part of accused to cause panic, fear, terror and
instability in any section of society---Validity---Section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 provided definition of 'terrorism',
but to the extent of act or action mentioned in subsection (2), subsection (1) provided certain pre-requisites provided
in sub-cls. (b) and (c) to bring use of threat of action provided in subsection (2) within meaning of 'terrorism',
Subsection (3) was very relevant under which pre-requisites provided in subsection (1) were to be considered
whenever use or threat of action provided in subsection (2) were to be evaluated to determine as to whether or not
same fell under definition of 'terrorism' which determined the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Legislature had left
no space for interpretation or determination with regard to certain actions by placing same in Third Schedule of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Under S.34 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, offence of causing hurt by means of corrosive
substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of corrosive substance which was punishable under S.336-A, P.P.C.,
had been added in Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Explanation to S.336-A, P.P.C. clarified that
corrosive substance also included every kind of acid which had corroding effect and was deleterious to human
body---Paragraph No.4(iv) of Third Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, clearly postulated that Anti-Terrorism Court
would, to the exclusion of any other Court, try offence relating to hurt caused by corrosive substance or attempt to
cause hurt by means of corrosive substance---High Court, setting aside impugned order of Anti-Terrorism Court,
dismissed application for transfer of case to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was allowed
accordingly.
NAWAZISH ALI VS State
2008 MLD 840,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 ,
99 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to court of ordinary jurisdiction was
dismissed---Validity---For determining the issue, 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 averments as to how the same had been committed 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---Petitioners/accused persons, in the present case, armed
with deadly weapon made criminal assault on the Police picket, causing murder of Sub-Inspector of Police and
injuring passerby, thereby committed offence of "terrorism" triable by Anti-Terrorism Court---Place of incident was a
Police picket, which was normally to be established so as to ensure safety and security to the people of the
area---"Action" i.e. manner of the offence, involved in the matter, was an attack upon established Police picket---
Such action would lead to an alarming situation and impression upon the people that if Police Officials, and Police
posts were not safe, then what impact would be upon general public---Such would show the worst situation of
lawlessness---Under such circumstances, not only vicinity of that area, but public at large, would have serious effect
of insecurity, lawlessness and uncertainty in their routine life---Present case was not one of private vendatta, but
action of accused persons reflected that it was a deliberate and intentional act---Prima facie, there was sufficient
material on the file to suggest that accused had resorted to indiscriminate firing at the Police party---Act of
petitioners fell within the purview of Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Interference with or disruption of the duty
of the public servants involved or coercion or intimidation of or violence against public servant, was "serious"
enough to attract the definition of "terrorism"---Contention that alleged weapon used during the incident was .30
bore pistol, which was not an automatic weapon, whereas the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, attracted only
when the weapon used was Kalashnikov, or other allied automatic, weapon, was misconceived, as S.2(g) of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 clearly denoted that "firearm" would mean any or all type and gauges of handguns, rifles
and shotgun, whether automatic, semi-automatic or bolt action; and would include all other firearms as defined in
Arms Ordinance, 1965---Well reasoned order, in absence of any error could not be interfered with--- Revision
petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
ASGHAR ALI MUBARAK VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.1, RAWALPINDI
Ss. 2, 6 (c), 7 & 12---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324---Religious and sectarian cause---Jurisdiction of Trial
Court---Case of qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd was registered against accused and case was sent to
Anti-Terrorism Court for trial but transferee Court returned the same on the ground that Court of ordinary jurisdiction
could not send the case to it for trial---Validity---Provision of S. 6(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was an independent
provision also defining terrorism---After cl. (b) in S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, word "or" was used clearly
suggesting that any action mentioned in cl. (c) would also be an act of terrorism and in order to apply cl. (c),
conditions mentioned in S. 76(b) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not required to be attracted---In order to attract S.
6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, allegations contained in crime report and statements of witnesses recorded under S.
161, Cr.P.C. to be examined---According to accusation contained in FIR lodged by complainant, he along with his
brothers, deceased and sisters was coming back to his home after attending "Majlis-e-Aza" when unidentified
assailants started firing causing injuries to deceased who died ultimately---Prima facie there was an action within the
meaning of S. 6(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the purposes of advancing religious and sectarian cause---High
Court directed prosecution branch to submit report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. to court of competent jurisdiction--- Petition
100 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Citation Name: 2016 YLRN 122 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD IRFAN VS State
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Act of terrorism, determining factors of---Whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the
purpose, the motivation, the actus reus or mens rea, were the determining factors to resolve the said riddle---Mere
brutality of an offence, in absence of the requirement of S.6 would not constitute an offence under S.7 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Where element of sense of fear or insecurity in public or a section of the public was missing,
the heinousness alone could not render a case triable under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Offences committed in the
background of personal enmity or with the burning desire of settling private vendetta, resulting in fear to many or a
few, certainly, would not fall within the domain of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Fear of insecurity in the society, as a
fallout or undesigned consequences, was not by itself terrorism, unless the motive or the design or the mens rea
pre-existed for creating such fear or insecurity in the society---Fear or insecurity, must not be a byproduct, fallout or
unintended consequence of a private crime, and that was what to be understood, while determining, if a
crime/offence committed, could be held an act of terrorism or not---Creation of fear and insecurity in the society was
not itself terrorism, unless it was coupled with the motive; it was essential that the offence committed, must have a
nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court, in
the present case, did not appear to have taken regard to the nexus between the offence committed and the object of
the case as envisaged by Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Mere allegation that accused used acid for
causing bodily injuries to prosecution witnesses, would not give rise to an act of terrorism---Conviction/sentence
recorded by the Trial Court against accused under S.7(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was set aside and he was
acquitted of the charge in circumstances.
NOUSHAD ALI VS State
1860--34 ,
Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 23---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---
Transfer of case to ordinary court of competent jurisdiction---Anti-Terrorism Court wherein case was filed, returned
the FIR to S.H.O. with direction to send the same to the ordinary court of competent jurisdiction---Validity---
Deceased and accused both were employees of same Bank; and both were present in the Bank on the date and
time of incident---Case of the prosecution was that after exchange of harsh words over matter of exchange of
money, at the spur of moment, accused allegedly fired at the deceased inside the room of the Bank---No firing in air
or at prosecution witnesses, or at public in order to create terror, sense of insecurity or destablize the public at large,
was alleged against accused---Design or purpose of the offence as contemplated by S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
was not attracted---Order passed by Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, did not require interference, as impugned order did
not suffer any illegality---Revision petiton having no force, was dismissed, in circumstances.
SIKANDAR ALI LASHARI VS State
2002 PCr.LJ 1765, PLD 2004 Lah. 829, PLD 2007 Kar. 448,
101 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-H , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--27-B , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--161 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--164 , Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--173 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--265-C , Pakistan Penal Code
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--164 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--2 ,
Ss. 302, 114, 109, 34 & 29---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 21-H & 27-B---Criminal Procedure Code (V
of 1898), Ss.265-C, 161, 164 & 173---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.2(b) & 164---Constitution of Pakistan,
Arts.4 & 10-A---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention, act of terrorism---Supply of copies of 'CDS' and 'USB'
(Universal Serial Bus), application for---Dismissal of application by Trial Court---Validity---Video cassette, fell within
the purview of 'document', for the reason that definition of document contained in S.29, P.P.C. and Art.2(b) of
Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, left no doubt that video cassette fell within the purview of matter expressed or described
upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks---Trial Court, had found that in order to avoid manipulation
or alteration, generally a manuscript of the recording, was supplied to accused; and decided that video and CD or
USB, would be played and heard after recording of evidence of both the sides in the open court; where accused
could note down things, and file objections; and the court could pass any appropriate order for deciding objection; or
could consider those objections at the time of writing judgment---Much emphasis was made in the impugned order
that CD and USB would be played/watched and heard in the open court after recording of evidence of both the
sides---Validity---Trial Court tried a case in which capital punishment could be awarded, if the charge was proved---
Incumbent upon the Trial Court to provide fair and reasonable opportunity of defence to accused, which was also a
basic and foremost prerequisite of administration of criminal justice---To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated
in accordance with law, was inalienable right of every citizen of Pakistan under Arts.4 & 10-A of the Constitution---
Trial Court had refused to supply the copy of CD and USB, which was not only against the mandate and command
of Arts.4 & 10-A of the Constitution but also in violation of norms of administration of justice---Findings of the Trial
Court were perverse and misconstrued---Once the typed/written transcripts of CD and USB were allowed to the
applicant/accused by the Trial Court, then it had become his more fervent and stringent inalienable and
incontrovertible right to get CD and USB for his defence---Unless he was supplied the copies, he would not be in a
position to compare the recorded version/statements with the transcripts and make out his defence---Denial of said
items amounted to dearth and scarcity of right to a fair trial---No substantial or conceivable rationale, was given in
the impugned order to deny the copy of CD and USB---Impugned order was set aside, with direction to the Trial
Court to supply the copies of CD and USB to the applicant in compliance of the provisions of S.265-C, Cr.P.C.---
High Court observed that finding of High Court in the present case, being based on specific legal question, would
not affect the merits of the case.
WAHID BAKHSH alias WAHIDOO VS State
2007 SCMR 142, 2007 YLR 1222, 2014 PCr.LJ 1052, 2014 PCr.LJ 1062, PLD 2012 Sindh 469,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A ,
Terrorism--TERM ,
102 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 561-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Inherent powers of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr. P. C.
---Scope--- Terrorism-- Scope---Accused impugned order of Trial Court whereby application for transfer of his case
from Anti-Terrorism Court to Sessions Court was rejected---Contention of accused was that he had been involved in
a false case by police and provision of S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had also been included in FIR to drag
accused in criminal case, in spite of the fact that no ingredient of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was attracted---
Validity---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was a special law which had been promulgated to prevent crimes of such nature
which would create terror and sense of insecurity in public-at-large and also to prevent an act relating to sectarian
violence or ethnic cause, kidnapping for ransom, extortion of money and similar acts which fell within the ambit of
terrorism as defined in S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---In the present case, it had come on record that alleged
police encounter continued for 20 minutes but no one either from the accused party or police had sustained any
injury, and police mobile had not received any grevious damage---Trial Court while passing impugned order had
failed to examine as to whether ingredients of alleged offence had any nexus with the object of "case" as
contemplated under Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Order of Trial Court not containing any valid reasons
was set aside---Application was allowed, accordingly.
MUHRAM ALI VS State
2000 PCr.LJ 1195, 2000 YLR 2668, 2000 YLR 902, 2001 PCr.LJ 1528, 2001 PCr.LJ 581, 2007 SCMR 142, 2014
YLR 2534, 2016 P Cr. L J 961, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2003 Lah. 593, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2009 Kar. 191,
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
103 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 23, 8, 7 & 6(k)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-
A---Qatl-i-amd; abetment; common object; terrorism---Power to transfer cases to regular courts---Application under
S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Complainants alleged that the accused persons demanded Bhatta from them, and on their
refusal to pay the same, the accused attacked on them with firearms making straight and aerial firing, which had
resulted in killing of the deceased---Anti-Terrorism Court dismissed application for transfer of the case to ordinary
court---Validity---Undeniably, the parties were on inimical terms with each other, as factum of animosity was
reflected form the series of FIR's lodged by them---Government had issued notification, whereby reward money for
dangerous criminals had been notified and the name of the deceased was mentioned therein---Said notification had
also mentioned the personal character and criminal activities of the deceased---Neither the deceased had
challenged said notification, nor the same had been recalled by the Home Department---Averments of the FIR were
silent regarding financial status and source of income of the complainant against which the accused had been
demanding Bhatta---Complainant had also not disclosed the specific dates, time and places of demanding of Bhatta
by the accused person, nor any such evidence had been produced before the Investigating Officer to prima facie
establish such allegations---Mere allegations of demanding Bhatta, in absence of any tangible material, did not
attract S. 6(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 6(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was neither mentioned in the
FIR nor in the Challan---Anti-Terrorism Court had taken cognizance of the case while declining request of the
Investigating Officer to transfer the case to the ordinary court---Cumulative effect of the averments of FIR,
surrounding circumstances and other material available on record, had replicated that the offence had been
committed on account of previous enmity with a definite motive---Alleged place of occurrence was not populated
area, and consequently, the allegations of aerial firing did not appear to be a case of terrorism---Intention of the
accused party did not depict or manifest any act of terrorism---Loss of life existed in a murder case, which was also
heinous crime against the society, but trial of each murder case could not be adjudged by the Anti-Terrorism Court,
except where peculiar circumstances as contemplated under Ss.6, 7, 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 existed---High
Court, allowing application under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, directed the Anti-Terrorism Court to transmit the
case to the Sessions Judge---Application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C was allowed accordingly.
SIP, ADAM ABRO VS Syed MUHAMMAD AMIN SHAH
1991 PCr.LJ 1368, 1996 MLD 111, 1998 SCMR 1840, 2008 SCMR 1544, 2008 SCMR 383, 2012 PCr.LJ 999, PLD
1978 Kar. 348, PLD 1996 Kar. 253, PLD 1999 SC 1063,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--265-K , Kidnapping for ransom--Term ,
Terrorism--TERM ,
104 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 265-K---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Terrorism---Kidnapping for ransom---Power of court to acquit

accused at any stage---Scope and requirements---Contradictions in private complaint and statement of witnesses
during preliminary inquiry and delay in filing complaint---Effect---Accused was alleged to have abducted nephew of
the complainant for ransom---Anti-Terrorism Court dismissed the application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. on the ground
that the points raised therein, being related to factual aspects of the case, required evidence---Accused had simply
pleaded that the charge against him was false and in support of his contention had referred to certain contradictions
in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses---Accused was not able to show any material discrepancy in
the contents of the complaint and the statements of witnesses to establish that the allegations against them were
prima facie false and fabricated and that those allegations even if proved would not end in their conviction---
Accused could not be acquitted under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. on basis of any alleged contradictions in the statements of
the witnesses---Object of S. 265-K was to satisfy the court about prima facie occurrence of the incident---Benefit of
the provision of S. 265-K, Cr.P.C could only be extended to the accused, when once he was able to establish that
the charge of the offence against him was groundless and no probability of his conviction on basis of the such
charge existed---Delay in filing of the complaint also could not be considered valid ground for acquittal of the
accused under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.--- Whether any adverse consequence was to follow or not due to the delay was
essentially a factual question, which had to be appreciated only in the light of the evidence---Delay in lodging the
complaint, even otherwise, appeared to have been reasonably explained---Accused, in the given circumstances
were not entitled to be acquitted under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.---Revision was dismissed accordingly.
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS State
2000 PCr.LJ 1195, 2000 YLR 2668, 2000 YLR 902,
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--2 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-
Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-H ,
Ss. 2, 6, 7 & 12---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act
and rioting armed with deadly weapons---Act of terrorism---Jurisdiction of Trial Court---Complainant was aggrieved
of order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, who returned investigation report to file the same before Court of ordinary
jurisdiction---Validity---Enmity existed between complainant party and accused over matrimonial affairs--- FIR
showed that offence did not fall within the ambit of Ss. 2 & 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Order in question was
passed on 24-5-2013, while revision was filed on 3-11-2015, after lapse of more than 28 months---Complainant was
negligently careless and did not pursue case vigilantly---Order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court could not be assailed
by filing revision petition but where some patent illegality or error was pointed out in the order passed by Anti-
Terrorism Court, the same could be assailed by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of
the Constitution, to such illegality--- High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
ARBAB ALI VS State
PLD 2005 SC 530,
105 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6 & 7 (as amended)---Interpretation applicability and scope of Ss.6 & 7---Act falling within meaning of
'Terrorism'---Personal gains, plea of---Offences referred in S. 6(1) (a) to (c) & 6(2)(a) to (h), (j) to (p) of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 have been defined by legislature, hence all such offences falling within such corners of definition shall
need no debate or scholarly work for holding those offences to be triable by Special Court---Application or
misapplication of S. 6 or 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is always with reference to S.6(2)(i) of the Act---Term
'terrorism' is defined within meaning of S. 6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as, if use of threat of action creates
serious risk to safety of public or section of public or same is designed to frighten general public and thereby
prevents them from coming out, carrying on their lawful trade, daily business or disrupts civil life---Intention of
legislature is to cover all such acts or omissions (offences) which are not covered by S. 6(1) (a) to (c) & 6(2) (a) to
(h), (j) to (p) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which regardless of said sections applied, and fall within four corners of S.
6(2)(i) of the Act---First part may be pressed where complained offence is claimed to have created serious risk to
safety of public or section of public, which claim would require establishing of such fact---Second part of the
provision would stand attracted if gathering circumstances justifies that complained action is designed to frighten
public resulting in preventing them from coming out, carrying on their lawful trade, daily business or disrupting civil
life---Deliberate use of terms 'frighten public' is of significance, but it cannot be believed that to prove that
prosecution is to bring 'public' into witness box---Nature and impact of complained offence is to be examined by
court on basis whereof intention of accused shall be determined---If complained action appears to have resulted in
frightening public from any of above guaranteed fundamental rights, such action (offence) shall fall within meaning
of 'terrorism'---Deliberate use of terms 'coming out', 'carrying on their lawful trade', 'daily business' or disrupting 'civil
life' are purposeful which have got no direct relevance of offence committed by accused upon victim, but same
speak about consequences and impact thereof upon public---Public is not direct victim of offence or benefit drawn
by accused from offence--- Every offence not covering by S. 6(1) (a) to (c) & 6(2) (a) to (h), (j) to (p) of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 are committed for personal gains whether that be dacoity, robbery, killing (if same is not on plea
of enmity) and even street crimes---If an offence claimed to be for personal gain shall exclude application of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, same shall amount eliminating object and purpose of the Act.
QAMARUDDIN VS State
2012 SCMR 517,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan
1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-H ,
106 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 561A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-Jaifah rioting a hurt by rash or negligent act, unlawful
assembly and terrorism---Essential ingredients of "terrorism"---Contention of accused was that essential ingredients
constituting Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 lacked in the case but Trial Court without considering evidence
collected by Joint Investigation Team during course of re-investigation and affidavits of seven injured persons, did
not accept supplementary report submitted by police for deletion of Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Complainant's plea was that at morning time accused made indiscriminate firing with automatic weapons at
the office of one Security Company causing death of four persons and injuring more than twenty persons and had
put general public in the office and on road under imminent danger to their lives and thereby created a sense of fear
and insecurity---Validity---Whenever any action was taken which created fear and insecurity in any section of
people, then such offence would fall within the ambit of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 where more than 25 persons
duly armed with automatic weapons assaulted upon complainant party and made indiscriminate firing at the office of
Security company, wherein not only complainant party sustained firearm injuries and four were killed, but several
other persons were injured, such incident caused uncertain atmosphere and created fear in locality---Trial Court had
rightly found that Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had full application in the case and had rightly applied the
same---Deletion of said provisions at later stage apparently seemed to be with mala fide intention just to favour the
accused---Application was dismissed, accordingly.
ABDUL GHANI VS State
PLD 2009 SC 427,
Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Kidnapping
for ransom and rioting with deadly weapons---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Plea raised by accused was that abductee
had sworn in an affidavit whereby they had been exonerated from charges---Validity---Names of accused transpired
in FIR and abductee had implicated them in his statement under S.161 Cr.P.C.---Affidavit of abductee at bail stage
could not be regarded as evidence and could not be acted upon unless Trial Court was satisfied that it was true and
reliable---Court had to be very careful while deciding bail application on the basis of affidavits---Entire material
collected during investigation was to be assessed tentatively---Affidavit of abductee obtained by force was the
aspect which had to be considered by Trial Court---Alleged offence carried capital punish-ment---Prima facie there
were reasonable grounds for believing that accused had committed alleged offence---Bail before arrest was
declined in circumstances.
SARFRAZ AHMED VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25-A , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--
TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--103 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--384 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--385 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--386 , Recovery--Term ,
107 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(2)(k), 7(h) & 25-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.384, 385 & 386---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S.103---Extortion and Bhatta---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery---No private witness---Accused was alleged to
have demanded Bhatta from complainant on telephone and in case of non-payment threatened to kill him---
Complainant after negotiations paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused---Trial Court convicted the accused and
sentenced him to seven years imprisonment---Validity---Statement of complainant under oath was very similar to his
FIR with no major contradictions---Complainant produced Mushirnama which police prepared on the spot and
produced property in sealed conditions---Statement of complainant under S.154, Cr.P.C., his Mushirnama,
inspection of crime scene and envelope containing demand chit, which he had given to police---Complainant also
identified accused in court in respect of two extortions as the person who personally collected money from him---
Complainant admitted during cross-examination that evidence which he produced was in relation to extortion
episode alone happened on 8-10-2012---Mushirnamas were not signed by two independent witnesses however to
an extent such was understandable that the incident took place late at night i.e. 12:30 a.m. when few witnesses
even if around would not want to involve themselves; it was not uncommon in such circumstances that independent
witnesses were unavailable or unwilling and such aspect was not fatal to prosecution case---Trial Court had rightly
held the prosecution evidence to be trust worthy and prosecution had proved its case against accused beyond
reasonable doubt---Minor contradictions were considered which had been accounted for by Trial Court---Appeal was
MUHAMMAD TAHIR VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Benefit of Doubt--TERM , Confession before police--Term ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--386 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--38 ,
Ss. 386 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(h) & 6(2)(k)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.
38---Terrorism, extortion of money, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, common
intention---False implication---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging FIR---Confession before police---Scope---Accused
were alleged to have given life threats to complainant and thereby tried to extort money from him---Trial Court,
convicting accused, sentenced them to five years' imprisonment along with fine--- FIR was lodged with delay of four
days, which had not been fully explained---No one had seen throwing of parcel into house of complainant---
Complainant had retained the parcel at his house for four days---Mobile phone number shown to have been used
was not in the name of accused---Accused had confessed his guilt during interrogation, which was inadmissible in
evidence---Complainant admitted that accused had been his driver---Accused alleged that complainant had been
removed from his service on his complaint, and complainant was, therefore, hostile towards him---Complainant's
evidence, in given circumstances, required independent corroboration, which was lacking---Investigating Officer
admitted to have arrested accused while patrolling along with his staff on spy information, but no arrival and
departure entries had been produced for satisfaction of court, which cut root of prosecution case---High court, giving
benefit of doubt to accused, set aside conviction and sentence---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
JAVED VS State
Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Sindh Arms Act
2013--23-A ,
108 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 353, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Sindh Arms
Act (V of 2013), S. 23A---Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duties, attempt to
commit qatl-i-amd and common intention, possessing of arm and act of terrorism---Bail after arrest, grant of---
Contention of complainant was that accused was arrested on the spot with an unlicensed pistol and was nominated
with specific role of making firing upon police, as such he was not entitled to be released on bail---Accused plea was
that no independent person was cited as mashir or witness and he was a poor fisherman and that police used to
demand fish from him without paying money and on his refusal he had been falsely implicated---Validity---Bail of
accused could not be withheld as punishment being offence falling under prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---High
Court observed that accused was arrested after firing on police but it was very astonishing that exchange of firing
between accused and police lasted for considerable time in which only accused had sustained injuries and neither
police nor their official vehicle was hit and even a single scratch was not caused to motorcycle allegedly recovered
from the accused---Ballistic examination report of pistol recovered from accused and empty shells of same, were
shown to have been collected from place of incident were also not available in police file and such facts created the
prosecution case apparently doubtful---Case registered under S. 23A(i) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 against the
accused was an off shoot of main case---Very presence of accused with alleged weapon was a matter of further
inquiry---Accused was granted post-arrest bail, accordingly.
INAYATULLAH alias ZAHID alias FARHO CHANDIO VS State
1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
Ss. 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---
Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism, snatching of official weapon---Appreciation of
evidence---Prosecution had specifically claimed to have gone for Nakabandi on information that some culprits had
caused beating and snatched official weapons from two Police constables---Such Nakabandi, having resulted into a
face-off with culprits, it could be said that prosecution was required to prove the root of the incident, but the
prosecution confined itself only to the extent of incident of face-off with culprits---Prosecution, neither examined said
Police Officials nor claimed that accused, and escaped co-accused were the same culprits who snatched official
weapons from the said officials after beating them---Prosecution failed to establish the claimed manner of the
incident---Indiscriminate firing was alleged to have been made by four culprits upon the Police party and they were
at the close distance, but the prosecution had nowhere claimed that there was even a single scratch to the Police
mobile---Absence of mark of firing on Police mobile was quite strange and unbelievable---Recovery of numbers of
empties of cartridges, was contrary to the claim of the prosecution which had created a doubt in the claim of the
prosecution, that there was serious indiscriminate firing by accused persons, which continued up to ten minutes---
Mere injuries on person of witnesses, were not sufficient to stamp the witness of truth, but their testimonies should
stand to the test of reasons and logic, in circumstances---Allegedly recovered weapon and cartridges, were not
sealed nor sent to ballistic expert with regard to status of such recovered weapon---Manner of incident, as claimed
by the prosecution, did not stand well to the test of reasons and logic as there were number of dents in the
prosecution case and it would not be safe to hold conviction of accused, because the safe criminal administration of
justice, always demanded that even a single doubt if found reasonable, was sufficient to warrant acquittal of
accused---Impugned judgment of the court below was set aside and accused was released, in circumstances.
109 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

TAHIR ALI TAHIR VS State
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009--71 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--124-A , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--189 , Writ Petition--TERM ,
Ss. 124-A & 189---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 25 & 32---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-
Governance) Order, 2009, Art.71(2)---Writ petition---Sedition, threat of injury to public servant, act of terrorism---
Transfer of case---Prima facie, an offence under S.124-A, P.P.C., was made out, which offence was triable by a
court of session exclusively and not by the special court---Appeal was provided under S.25 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 and no remedy was available against an interim order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---High Court was under
legal obligation to interpret the law; and give effect to any provision of law; and provide justice to the needy people
by exercising their constitutional powers; and those powers could not be curtailed on one or the other pretext---High
Court, had the jurisdiction to grant any appropriate relief to any party by converting one type of proceeding, provided
the jurisdiction of the court would remain intact---Section 32 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, though had an overriding
effect, and only an appeal was provided under S.25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Chief Court had ample powers
under Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 to grant relief to the parties, when the court
was of the view that dictates of justice so demanded---By accepting writ petition order/judgment passed by Anti-
Terrorism Court, was set aside, and case was transferred from Anti-Terrorism Court to the Court of Session for
trial---Trial Court would dispose of the case on merits.
BABA JAN VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-H , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--
TERM , Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--17 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--427 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--436 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--448 ,
110 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 147, 148, 149, 427, 436, 353 & 448---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-H---Offences Against
Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17---Rioting, common object, mischief, mischief by fire
or explosive substance, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, house-trespass,
act of terrorism, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Conclusion of Trial Court, was completely contradictory to
the prosecution evidence---Evidences of prosecution, referred by the Trial Court, were not available in the file, which
would mean that said evidence had not been produced by the prosecution---Trial Court having not relied on the
whole statement of the prosecution witnesses, views and findings of the Trial Court, were against the principle of
acceptance of the whole of the statement of any prosecution witness, or discarding the whole---Trial Court had on
the one hand accepted part statement of prosecution witnesses against some of co-accused; and had discarded the
other part of the statement of prosecution witnesses regarding some accused---Such view of the Trial Court was
without any explanation---Trial Court had convicted accused, though none of the prosecution witnesses charged the
accused for any of the offences---In a case of rioting by a mob, every member of the mob was responsible for the
occurrence, while in the present case Trial Court had accepted selection of accused for trial---In such a case, to
sustain a conviction for rioting, it was essential for prosecution, first to prove the existence of an unlawful assembly
with a common object, and then to prove that one or more members of the assembly used violence or force in
furtherance of the common object---Prosecution evidence, was silent about the common object of the alleged
rioters---None of the prosecution witnesses had stated about any kind of common object of the rioters and had not
charged accused for any of the offences---Prosecution witnesses only stated about mere presence of accused in the
mob---Mere presence of accused at the place of occurrence, was never sufficient to prove that he shared the
common object of unlawful assembly---Prosecution witnesses had not stated that accused did any act which
amounted to offence under any of the said sections of law---Evidence of prosecution did not show any
circumstance, attracting offences under S.17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance,
1979 and offence of Ss.6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court was not justified to try accused for said
offences---Circumstances of the case stated by the prosecution witness, constituted a case under offences under
Ss.147, 148, 149, 427, 436, 353 & 448, P.P.C.; and that also without any concrete evidence against accused---
Prosecution evidence hardly showed presence of accused at the place of occurrence, but without showing any role
of accused in commission of alleged occurrence---Accepting or reading the confessional statement of accused
recorded under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not admissible, and irrelevant against accused in
circumstances---Prosecution had levelled allegation of looting the weapons and cartridges from 'Malkhana' of Police
Station, while no evidence showed that Police had stored any weapons in said Malkhana---Medical report was not
against accused---Impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court being bad in the eye of law
and merits, was set aside, in circumstances.
Syed FIDA UR RAHMAN SHAH VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-H , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) 1898--103 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Explosive Substances Act 1908--4 , Explosive
Substances Act 1908--5 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--188 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance
1965--13 ,
111 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 497(2) & 103---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.188---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Explosive
Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-H---Disobedience to order
promulgated by public servant, possessing unlicensed arms, and illicit arms and explosive material---Act of
terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused persons were charged in the FIR; and as per prosecution story
were arrested red handed, but, despite prior information, the Investigating Officer, did not associate any respectable
person of locality; violating the provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C.---Only Police Officials were cited as recovery
witnesses---Non-compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C., even at bail stage, could be considered circumstance favouring
accused; and could be termed a sinister attempt to conceal truth, on the part of prosecution---No evidence was
available regarding planning of commission of subversive act, for which accused persons had been booked, except
the statement of accused persons under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Samples of the explosive material,
allegedly recovered from accused persons, had not been sent to expert for opinion---Case against accused
persons, being of further inquiry, they could claim bail as of right---Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
State VS IRFAN KARIM
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-L , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appeal Against Acquittal--
TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--417 , Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance 1979--17 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--337-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--427 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--448 ,
Reappraisal of evidence--TERM ,
Ss. 427, 448, 353, 147, 149 & 337-A---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979),
S.17---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-L---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---
Mischief, house-trespass, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting,
common object, causing Shajjah, Haraabah, act of terrorism, abscondence---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal
of evidence---Deputy Advocate General, had failed to point out any misreading of evidence by Trial Court that
resulted to the impugned order of acquittal---Prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused persons and could
not produce any evidence, showing any role of accused persons in commission of the offence---No likelihood
existed of recording conviction of accused persons, even, if the prosecution evidence collected during investigation,
was left un-rebutted---Meritless, baseless and frivolous appeal, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2015 YLR 1210 SUPREME-APPELLANT-COURT-GILGIT-BALTISTAN Bookmark this Case
ARIF-UD-DIN VS State
1998 MLD 1,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Compromise--TERM ,

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--345 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
112 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 34, 324 & 337-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd,
causing Shajjah, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Compromise---
Compromise was arrived at between the legal heirs of the deceased and accused, whereby legal heirs pardoned
the accused in the name of Allah Almighty---Trial Court confirmed the genuineness of compromise between the
parties---Case of compromise, having been made out, accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.
DSP BABAR KHAN NOW SP RESIDENT OF SULTABAD HUNZA VS SHER SULEIMAN
Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.132 &
197---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Two
persons were killed in the incident and FIR was lodged against the petitioners, but said FIR was discharged by
Police---Complainant party, dissatisfied with the order of Police, filed a private complaint against the petitioners
before the court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism, which was also dismissed by the Anti-Terrorism Court---
Complainant being dissatisfied with the order of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism filed revision petition before Chief
Court---Chief Court set aside order of Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court and private complaint was transferred to
Additional Sessions Judge for disposal of the same under ordinary jurisdiction in accordance with law---Validity---
Judgment passed by the Chief Court was based on facts and law and same required to be maintained---Said order
passed in revision by the Chief Court, was well reasoned and well founded, as no infirmity and illegality had been
pointed out by the petitioner, which was upheld---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was
dismissed being meritless---Petitioner, however, would be at liberty to seek legal remedies during trial by moving
application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., for their acquittal.
State VS SHAMS-UR-REHMAN
Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 27---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.
13---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Trial
Court vide its judgment acquitted accused---Chief Court, on appeal, not only maintained the impugned judgment of
the Trial Court, but imposed Diyat on State for defective investigation, instead of taking action against Investigating
Officer under S.27 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---State Counsel, could not point out any infirmity and illegality in both
the judgments of the courts below, and admitted that there was no eye-witnesses; and that recovery of pistol was
not effected in presence of independent witnesses from the house of accused---Matching of empties fired from
recovered pistol lost its evidentiary value rather became doubtful in circumstances---Orders passed by the Trial
Court and Chief Court were maintained, in circumstances.
ARIF-UD-DIN VS State
113 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 345---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 &
7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing Shajjah,
common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arms---Compromise---Compromise was arrived at
between accused persons and legal heirs of the deceased during pendency of appeal---Trial Court gave report
regarding the genuineness of said compromise---Statements of legal heirs of deceased were recorded wherein they
all had pardoned the accused persons---Case of compromise having been made out, accused were acquitted from
the charges levelled against them.
ABDUL HAQ VS State
1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--392 ,
Reappraisal of evidence--TERM ,
S. 340(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 34, 148, 149, 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii) & 392---Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Sectarian killings, acts of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Oath on Holy Quran to
prove innocence, relevance of---Scope---Accused in his statement under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. stated that he was ready
to state on Holy Quran that he was innocent---Held, that there was no legal sanctity behind such a statement by the
accused---Overwhelming evidence was available against the accused, which clearly proved that he had taken the
lives of innocent citizens and he had only made such statement to save his skin---Appeal was dismissed
accordingly.
ABDUL HAQ VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Daylight occurrence--Term , Pakistan Penal Code
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--392 , Reappraisal
of evidence--TERM ,
114 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 324, 34, 148, 149, 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii) & 392---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Sectarian
killings, acts of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Heinous crime---Promptly lodged FIR---Natural eye-
witnesses---Daylight occurrence---No probability of false implication---Medical evidence corroborating ocular
account---Accused and co-accused allegedly murdered 10 persons belonging to a religious sect, and to avoid their
arrest they also killed two police officials---Trial Court sentenced accused and co-accused to death, which sentence
was upheld by the High Court---Validity---Present case was a classic case of sectarianism---Accused and co-
accused were specifically named in the FIRs, which were promptly lodged, thus, the same excluded the chances of
any deliberation or false implication---Eye-witnesses were natural witnesses as they were present at the spot to
attend a religious gathering---Eye-witnesses narrated the story in a natural manner and they remained consistent on
all major particulars of the case---Present occurrence was daylight occurrence and no question of mistaken identity
arose---One of the eye-witnesses had also received injuries and his brother was one of the deceased---In such
circumstances, it did not appeal to mind that the said eye-witness would falsely implicated the accused and co-
accused without any previous enmity and let off the real culprits---Nothing could be brought on record to prove that
the witnesses had any previous enmity or ill-will to falsely implicate the accused and co-accused in the present
case---Although no one from the general public had appeared to make a statement, but it was generally noted that
people in cases like the present one normally hesitated to appear and become a witness due to fear and reprisal---
Medical evidence also fully supported the ocular account so far as the nature and locale of injuries were
concerned---Weapon of offence recovered from the accused and co-accused and the empties which were taken into
possession from the place of occurrence were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the report was positive---
Overwhelming evidence was available on record against accused and co-accused which clearly connected them
with the commission of crime---Accused and co-accused had committed a heinous crime and they did not deserve
any leniency---Supreme Court observed that sectarian issue in Pakistan was a major destabilizing factor in the
country's political, social, religious and security order; that sectarian conflict in Pakistan had caused unrest, disorder
and violence in society, and resulted into thousands of deaths from suicide attacks, bomb blasts, assassinations and
other terrorist acts; that abscess of sectarianism could be stopped by adopting strategies such as by removing from
textbooks, reading material and syllabi taught in different educational institutions all such material which promoted
hatred and biases on the basis of religion, sect, sex, ethnicity and culture---Supreme Court further observed that the
media, both print and electronic, must be instructed to do responsible reporting on sectarian matters, and that
violent sectarian organizations must be banned---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
MUHAMMAD RAHEEL alias SHAFIQUE VS State
Ss. 6 & 12---Sectarian killing---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Sectarian killings were also included in
the definition of 'terrorism' contained in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and, thus, an Anti-Terrorism Court was
possessed of the requisite jurisdiction to try a case of sectarian killing.
Citation Name: 2015 MLD 313 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case
BASHIR AHMED VS State
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
115 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(e) & 7(e)---Kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act
of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused persons being with muffled faces at the time of
alleged occurrence, neither complainant nor any body else could identify them---F.I.R., was lodged on the next day
of occurrence, despite levies check Post, was nearby the place of alleged occurrence---Statement of complainant
had shown that F.I.R. was lodged with consultation and was an afterthought---Such delay in lodging F.I.R., could not
be taken lightly, as it cast serious doubt in the case of the prosecution---No explanation was on record with respect
to inordinately lodging F.I.R.---Names of accused persons came in picture through the supplementary statements of
the complainant for the first time---Neither the Fard-e-Bayan, was reliable nor the supplementary statement was
worth credence, as the same had not been filed promptly---False implication of accused persons, could not be ruled
out of consideration in circumstances---Prosecution story as narrated by the complainant, did not appeal to logic---
Statement of prosecution witness, was not worth credence, and it appeared that said witness had concealed the
actual dispute between the parties---All prosecution witnesses were closely related to each other, and one of them
was closely related to alleged abductee---Prosecution had failed to produce any independent witness to corroborate
the prosecution case---Accused persons could not be assumed to be culprits solely on the statements of witnesses
who were interested and were closely related to the alleged abductee---Recovery of abductee was neither effected
from possession of accused persons, nor on their pointation---No ransom amount was paid for release of the
abductee---Alleged abductee, recorded his statement before the Investigating Officer after considerable delay after
his alleged release/recovery without any explanation, which created serious doubt about his abduction by accused
persons---Identification parade conducted by the prosecution was also of no avail to the case of prosecution, as the
complainant in the supplementary statement, had failed to give the description of accused persons---While
conducting the identification parade, the legal formalities, were not complied with and followed by Judicial
Magistrate---Statement of witnesses were not free from doubt as same suffered from sufficient infirmities, dishonest
improvements and contradictions---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against accused persons beyond any
shadow of doubt---Trial Court while delivering the impugned judgment, had failed to consider evidence available on
record---Impugned judgment passed by Special Court, was set aside and accused were acquitted and released
extending them benefit of doubt in circumstances.

HAZIR ZAMAN VS BAKHT ZAMAN
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
116 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b), 309 & 310---Act of terrorism---Determination of---Whether a
particular act was an act of terrorism or not the motivation, object, design or purpose behind the act was to be
seen---Alleged offence of murder in the case took place because of suit for dissolution of marriage between accused
and the deceased lady---Motive for the occurrence was also the suit---Motive being dissolution of marriage between
husband and wife, application of S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which primarily required the spread of sense of
insecurity and fear in the common mind was lacking in the case and definition of "terrorism" was not attracted to the
case---Since the main case of murder of the deceased under S.302(b), P.P.C. had been patched up by her legal
heirs with accused, and they had pardoned the accused in the name of Almighty Allah; they also waived off their
right of Qisas and Diyyat, and they (including the injured witnesses), were not interested to proceed in the case,
futile exercise, and sheer wastage of time of the court and the parties concerned to continue with the case---
Allowing appeal of accused, conviction and sentence imposed upon accused by Anti-Terrorism Court, were set
aside, he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him and was set at liberty, in circumstances.
GHULAM AKBAR VS State
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.
MIRCHOO alias MIRCH VS State
Ingredients--TERM ,
117 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 23---Object and scope of Ss.6, 7 & 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---"Act of terrorism", determination of---
Principles---Case triable by Anti-terrorism court---Ingredients---In order to determine as to whether an offence would
fall within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it was essential to have a glance over the allegations made in
the FIR; material collected during investigation and surrounding circumstances and to examine; whether the
ingredient of alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7, 8 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997; whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design and
purpose behind the said act was to be seen; whether said act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the
public, or in a section of the public or community, or in any sect; whether action resulted in striking terror or creating
fear, panic, sensation, helplessness; and sense of insecurity among the people in the particular area, the same
would amount to terror and such an action would fall 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---In the present case, accused person had committed offence on the main road and target was Sub-
Inspector of Police was not material that Police functionary was on duty or not at the time of violation---In the result
of indiscriminate firing by automatic weapons two persons had lost their lives---Act of accused on main road in brutal
manner, had created fear and insecurity to the general public---Act of accused involved serious violence against the
members of the Police force---Case, in circumstances, prima facie fell under S.6(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and
Anti-Terrorism Court had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the same---Application of accused, to transfer case to
regular court, was dismissed, in circumstances.
ABDUL RAZZAQ LASHARI VS GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary
S.6---"Act of terrorism"---Scope---Object or effect of act of terrorism is to strike terror or create sense of fear and
insecurity in the minds of people or any section of people/society.
JAVED VS State
1994 SCMR 548, 1999 PCr.LJ 606, 2013 YLR 520, PLD 2008 Lah. 74,
(Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--385 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--386 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--506-B , Suspension of sentence--TERM ,
Ss.6 (k), 7 & 25 (8)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.385, 386 & 506-B---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S.561-A---Taking Bhatta (Extortion of money)---Suspension of sentence---Delay in deciding appeal---Inherent
jurisdiction of High Court---Bar on suspension of sentence---Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to
five years of imprisonment---Validity---Appeal was to be decided within 7 days and more than two years had
passed---Much more time would be required to hear the appeal and dispose of, as there was tremendously heavy
backlog of such appeals filed earlier than that of accused---Accused remained in jail throughout the period ever
since his arrest---High Court treated the case of accused as one of hardship and suspended the sentence---Bail
118 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

ALI SHER VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT SHAHEED BENAZIRABAD
2007 SCMR 142, 2011 PCr.LJ 1370, 2012 SCMR 517,
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 ,
Dismissal of application--Term ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Act of terrorism---Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary court---
Dismissal of application---For the purpose of deciding application moved under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
court had to see the contents of the FIR, and material collected by Investigating Officer---Accused, in the present
case, not only created hindrance and obstructions in the performance of duty by the Police, but also intimidated the
public servants in order to refrain them from discharging their lawful duties and also created serious violence which
was an act of terrorism, punishable under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Due to incident, concerned city was
closed, general public was prevented from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business---Due to
said act of terrorism, civil life was also disrupted and perturbed---Prosecution, keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, had rightly filed the charge-sheet of the case in Anti-Terrorism Court---Trial Court while
dismissing the application filed under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not commit any illegality or irregularity
requiring interference.
SAJAN VS State
1860--342 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 ,
Ss. 365, 365-A & 342---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Kidnapping or abduction with intent secretly
and wrongfully to confine person, kidnapping for ransom, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Case being of
kidnapping for ransom, evidence of two abductees, the persons who paid ransom, could not be rejected; for the
reasons that prosecution evidence was natural, coherent and rang true---Defence evidence appeared to be
unbelievable and afterthought---Defence witness did not belong to the village from where abductees were
kidnapped---Defence plea had not been put up to prosecution witnesses in cross-examination---Defence theory was
not acceptable at all in circumstances---In order to constitute an offence of abduction for ransom, proof thereof was
not sine qua non, and said offence also would stand constituted, if there was an abduction and the purpose of the
abduction was extortion of ransom, or ransom was demanded for the release of the abductee---Demand, in the
present case, was made by the culprits for payment of ransom for release of the abductees, which was actually
paid---Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence---Both the abductees had stated that after abduction ,
accused chained them and they were recovered as a result of a Police encounter---Both abductees remained in
captivity of accused for more than 40 days---Accused was caught red handed in the Police encounter and both
abductees were recovered from his possession---All pieces of evidence brought on record by the prosecution
connected accused in commission of offence---Offence had been committed by accused persons in the manner as
alleged by prosecution---Prosecution witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate accused persons in the case of
that nature---Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt---
Trial Court had dilated upon all aspects of case and appreciated evidence properly, accused had rightly been
convicted, which required no interference.
119 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

SHAHID ZAFAR VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Jurisdiction of Special Court--
Term ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---"Terrorist act", determination of---Jurisdiction 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.
MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS SAGEER AHMED alias BHAYA
S. 6---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court has to be determined

according to mandate of relevant penal provisions provided in S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, at the time of framing
of charge.
MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS SAGEER AHMED alias BHAYA
2002 PCr.LJ 1317, 2003 SCMR 1323, 2005 PCr.LJ 957, 2008 SCMR 1631, 2009 SCMR 527, PLD 2001 SC 521,
PLD 2009 SC 11,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Determination--Term , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
120 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302 & 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7(a)(e)---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13(e)---Qat-i-amd, kidnapping for ransom--- "Act of terrorism"--- Determination---Grievance of complainant was
that Anti-Terrorism Court transferred the trial to court of plenary jurisdiction on the ground that offences did not
contain element of terrorism---Validity---Complainant, during trial, had categorically deposed that his son was
kidnapped and ransom was demanded from him and his son was murdered---After recording evidence, mere
tentative assessment of Anti-Terrorism Court that it had no jurisdiction was injudicious and contrary to law---No
enmity existed between the parties, action of accused resulted in striking terror and sense of insecurity among the
people in a particular vicinity and it amounted to create terror in business community---Anti-Terrorism Court had
exclusive jurisdiction in the matter as action of accused fell within the ambit of section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---High Court declared the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court to be illegal and injudicious and was set
aside---High Court directed Anti-Terrorism Court to proceed in case under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
and decide the case in accordance with law---Revision was allowed in circumstances.
JAVED IQBAL VS State
1992 SCMR 2079, 2002 SCMR 1225, 2002 SCMR 908, 2003 SCMR 1323, 2003 SCMR 663, 2004 SCMR 1170,
2005 SCMR 1162, 2011 PCr.LJ 1370, 2012 PCr.LJ 1735, 2012 SCMR 517, 2013 MLD 433, PLD 1995 SC 66, PLD
2001 SC 96, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2006 SC 182, PLD 2007 SC 447, PLD 2012 Bal. 22,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--
TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--345 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--SECOND SCH ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , West Pakistan
Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324 & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345, Sched. Third, item No.4(iii)---Act of terrorism, qatl-i-amd, attempt to
commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Transfer of case
from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of Session---Compromise, effect of---Application of accused filed under S.23 of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for transfer of his case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to the Court of Session, was
dismissed---Accused had committed murder of his real sister with fire-arm inside the court room, which under item
No.4(iii), of the Third Schedule, annexed to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was Scheduled Offence, exclusively triable by
Anti-Terrorism Court---Contention was that complainant/husband of the deceased having entered into a compromise
with the family of accused, by consent, matter could be transferred to the Court of Session; and parties be allowed
to settle the matter in accordance with law---Validity---Accused was charged inter alia with an offence under Ss.6 &
7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which did not find place in any of the columns of the Table appended to the
provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C., detailing the compoundable offences---Allowing prayer to transfer case from Anti-
Terrorism Court on ground of compromise would literally mean converting a non-compoundable offence into a
compoundable offence, which was a total novel concept; and not recognized by the law---Law had clearly limited the
cases which could be compoundable/ compromised and did not provide any scope for converting a non-
compoundable offence into a compoundable, merely because the parties had entered into a compromise---Such an
action would not only frustrate the provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C., but would make all offences as compoundable which
would be against the public policy and beyond the competence of court, and could not be allowed---Neither
jurisdiction could be conferred on a court which had no jurisdiction to adjudicate an issue, nor a court could be
deprived of its jurisdiction for the convenience or at the request of the parties---Accused had killed his sister on
account of her free will marriage in the court room, where justice was dispensed and people had confidence to be
treated in accordance with law---Anti-Terrorism Court, had rightly rejected request for transferring the case to the
Court of Session, in circumstances.
121 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

GHULAM ALI alias ALI VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--169 , Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan
Ss. 561-A & 169---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 365, 147, 149, 324, 458, 148 & 504---Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine
person, rioting, common object, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, lurking house-trespass or house breaking by night
after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, intentional insult with
intent to provoke breach of the peace and act of terrorism---Quashing of proceedings---Inherent powers of High
Court---Scope---Police submitted report under S. 169, Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate which was not agreed
to by him---Contention of the accused was that the order was non-speaking---Validity---Magistrate had passed the
impugned order in a slipshod and hasty manner---Non-speaking orders were to be discouraged and court was to
give reasons for passing administrative as well as judicial order---Case was remanded to the Judicial Magistrate for
passing speaking order.
MUMTAZ alias LALOO VS State
1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance
1965--13-D ,
122 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

D---Act of terrorism, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of
duty, common intention and possession of unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Allegation against the
accused was that he along with co-accused fired upon the complainant party (police) with intention to kill them---
Trial Court convicted the accused and the co-accused were acquitted----Other case was decided by the Trial Court
wherein the accused persons were acquitted from the charge of abduction of abductee who was recovered during
the incident of the present case as the abductee had not supported the prosecution version and he had not
identified the accused persons before the Trial Court during trial and abductee had not been examined by the
prosecution---None from either party received injury nor any bullet hit to the vehicle or recovered car from which
abductee was recovered---Prosecution had failed to prove its case and Assistant Prosecutor General conceded the
facts that the recovered weapon had not been proved against the accused and ingredients of S. 324, P.P.C. were
missing in the present case and when two main offences were not proved by the prosecution, the evidence on the
remaining offences became doubtful---Prosecution did not prove the charge against the accused beyond any
shadow of reasonable doubt---Present case became doubtful as no evidence was brought against the accused in
the abduction case and prosecution had failed to prove charge against the accused regarding attempt to commit
murder of the complainant party (police) and deterring them in discharge of their duties---Prosecution had failed to
prove the recovery of crime weapon from the possession of the accused which had not been sent to the ballistic
expert in order to ascertain its working condition, so failed to prove terror or sense of fear in the society---
Reasonable doubt had been created in the prosecution case and benefit of doubt went in favour of the accused as
matter of right---Appeal was allowed and impugned judgment was set aside and accused was acquitted from the
charge.
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
Ss. 6 & 7(a)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Act of terrorism, qatl-i-amd---Accused who was deputed as
security guard for the deceased fired at and killed the latter because of his views on blasphemy laws---Trial Court
convicted the accused under S.7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 & S.302(b), P.P.C, and sentenced him to death---
Contention of accused was that Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not attracted in the present case as there was not an
iota of evidence on record to show that any panic or sense of insecurity was created in the general public, and in-
fact general public was relieved on the death of the deceased in view of the notoriety of his character and his
utterance about the blasphemy laws---Validity---Only one of the prosecution witnesses stated that the incident
created panic---No other prosecution witness stated that the act of the accused in committing the murder of the
deceased created sense of fear and insecurity in the society or resulted in intimidating and terrorizing the public---
Investigation Officer of the case did not utter any word in such regard---Moreover, if any incriminating material in
such regard was present , the same was not put to the accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Prosecution
evidence by itself revealed that accused was motivated against the deceased due to certain reasons and he had no
other intention except to murder the deceased---Accused murdered the deceased and did not injure or assault any
other person standing nearby the place of occurrence---Finding of Trial Court that the accused was also guilty of
commission of the offence of terrorism was not sustainable in such circumstances---Sentence awarded to accused
for his conviction under S.7 (a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was set aside accordingly, while that awarded under
S.302(b), P.P.C, was maintained---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
123 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

SARFRAZ VS State
TERM , Haraabah--Term , Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--17 , Pakistan
Ss. 147, 148, 149, 427, 436, 353 & 448---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-H---Offences Against
Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17---Rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon,
common object, mischief causing damage, mischief by fire or explosive substance, assault or criminal force to deter
public servant from discharge of his duty, house-trespass, act of terrorism---Haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---
Eye-witnesses were taking names of different persons as members of the mob---None of the said prosecution
witnesses, were attributing any role or alleging against accused persons---Said prosecution witnesses were simply
taking names of few of accused persons, showing only their presence in the mob---Trial Court, did not rely on the
whole statement of any of the prosecution witnesses---Findings of the Trial Court, were against the principles of
acceptance of whole of the statement of any prosecution witness or discarding the whole---Trial Court, had on the
one hand accepted part statement of prosecution witnesses against some of accused, and had discarded the other
part of the statement of prosecution witness regarding some accused---Such attitude of the Trial Court was without
any explanation on its part---Conclusion of the Trial Court was completely contradictory to the prosecution
evidence---Findings of Trial Court, were quite different from the examination-in-chief of the statement of S.H.O.
concerned---About 700/800 persons had gathered in front of a Bank, turned into an illegal mob entailing to the
occurrence, but the Trial Court had convicted the persons who had not been charged by any of the prosecution
witness for any of the offences---In a case of rioting by a mob every member of the mob was responsible for the
occurrence, but in the present case Trial Court had selected accused persons for trial---Prosecution witnesses had
stated mere presence of said accused persons in the mob---Accused persons, could not be convicted and punished
merely on the basis of their presence, when none of the prosecution witnesses had stated that any of the said
accused did any act amounting to offence alleged against them---Prosecution evidence, did not show any
circumstance showing attraction of the offences of Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and offence of 'Haraabah'
under S.17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979---Ocular evidence against
accused persons, was not only insufficient, but was wrong also---Circumstantial evidence, could hardly corroborate
ocular evidence--Trial Court had accepted statements of accused persons recorded under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, while such confessional statement was not admissible, but was irrelevant against accused persons---Trial
Court should have abandoned such confessional statements, as said statements did not contain any question
showing that prosecution had no alternative except to produce the appellants (accused persons) before the High
official of police who recorded such statement---Prosecution levelled allegation of looting the weapons and
cartridges from 'Malkhana' of Police Station, while no evidence was available to the effect that Police had stored any
weapon in that 'Malkhana'---Medical evidence was not against any of accused persons---Impugned order of the Trial
Court being bad in the eyes of law, merited reversal---Conviction and sentence, awarded to accused persons, were
set aside, in circumstances.
FARMAN KARIM VS State
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-A , Quashing of proceedings--Term ,
124 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 295-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.196 & 561-A---
Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious
beliefs---Quashing of proceedings---Case under S.295-A, P.P.C., could not be registered against any person, unless
same was made upon complaint by order of or under authority from the Federal Government or the Provincial
Government concerned; or some other officer empowered in that behalf by, either of the two Governments---In the
present case, no such sanction had been obtained---If case pertained to offences against State; cognizance thereof
could not be taken unless clog put in S.196, Cr.P.C., was removed---No doubt, provision of S.196, Cr.P.C., was
mandatory in nature, unless prohibition contained in said section was crossed by sanction of Federal or Provincial
Government, followed by a complaint by an authorized person, however when such a case became triable by a
Special Judge, established under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, provisions of S.196, Cr.P.C., which pertained to general
law, would not be applicable to the proceedings before Special Court, because Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was
a special law, had overriding effect, notwithstanding anything contained in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
SHER SULAIMAN VS DSP BABAR KHAN
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--132 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--200 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--324 , Private complaint--Term , Protection against prosecution--Term ,
Ss. 302 & 324---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.132 &
200---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Private complaint---
Dismissal of---Protection 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.
125 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

State VS SHAKEEL AHMAD
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-H , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-L , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appeal Against Acquittal--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--40 , Reappraisal of evidence--TERM ,
Ss.6, 7, 21-H, 21-L & 25---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 34, 114 & 109---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Art.40---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.13(b) & 25---Qatl-i-amd,
common intention, abetment---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal of evidence---Statements of accused recorded
by Superintendent of Police, did not contain the proper and clear answers given by accused persons to questions
put to them, which could suggest that confessions of accused were voluntary within the contemplation of S.21-H of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Said statements had lost its effectiveness for becoming a piece of evidence---Statement
recorded under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, could not be used as exclusive piece of evidence, upon which
conviction could be based, if said statement was not corroborated by a strong piece of evidence---Said statement,
would be treated just a piece of evidence, which would be read along with the other material on record---Section
21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was repugnant to Arts.13(b) & 25 of the Constitution---Prosecution claimed that a
.30 bore pistol was recovered at the pointation of accused, which version, was substantiated by prosecution
witness; but, in court it turned out to be different one, in description of pistol, rather it was 163 mm and not 30 bore,
which had made the recovery doubtful---Recovery of pistol, could not be treated as corroborative piece of
evidence---Site-plan prepared at the pointation of accused, could not be termed in pursuance of Art.40 of Qanun-
e-Shahadat, 1984, as in order to bring the case within the ambit of Art.40, prosecution must establish that
information conveyed by accused, actually led to the recovery of same and that said fact was unknown to the
Police, and it was for the first time derived from the accused---Just after the occurrence, the Police had visited the
spot, and on the pointation of eye-witness, Investigating Officer, prepared the site-plan---Conditions laid down under
Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, were not attracted in the case---Each and every piece of evidence, collected by
Investigating Officer in the case, to connect accused with the offence, suffered with doubts and infirmities---No
conviction could be based on such evidence in circumstances---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed being
meritless.
Mir SHAKEEL-UR-REHMAN VS The STATE
126 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 295-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 12 & 19---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S.526---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Deliberation and malicious acts
intended to outrage religious feeling of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, common intention, act of
terrorism---Transfer of case---Criminal case was registered against accused person, on allegation that accused
person by visible representation through wide spoken words used derogatory remarks against holy person of the
higher degree i.e. Ummal Momineen and other members of the Holy family of Ahl-e-Bait on TV---Said program was
watched by the public in general in which something of the nature of disrespect to Hazrat Ali (R.A.) Fatima-Tu-Zahra
(R.A.), Khulfa-e-Rashideen and other companions of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him), was articulated---
Accused did not associate with Joint Investigating Team and remained absconding and did not surrender to the
jurisdiction of Investigating Authority---Trial Court after completion of legal formalities declared the accused person
as absconder and proceeded with the case in his absence---Accused person filed application under S.526, Cr.P.C.,
for transfer of case to another court alleging that Trial Court was in a hurry to conclude the trial, and proceeded with
the matter in such a haste that Trial Judge, did not even bother to comply with certain legal provisions; and acted in
violation of mandatory legal provisions of law---Accused person contended that he had lost confidence in the Trial
Judge---Chief Court dismissed application for transfer of case to another court, being not maintainable---Validity---
While making an application for transfer of the case from one court to another, it must be established that genuine
apprehension had arisen in the mind of accused and that fair and impartial trial was not possible at the hands of the
Trial Judge---Even before the Supreme Appellate Court, no pertinent reason had been advanced or put forward by
accused---Applicant of transfer application should not be illusory or ill-founded---Mere fact that Trial Court was
proceeding with the case in hasty manner, by no means, would provide any justification to invoke the jurisdiction of
the supervisory court to transfer the case---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, itself provided a speedy disposal of the trial
and it had been made imperative upon the Trial Judge to conclude the case within the period of seven days---No
motive or malice could be attributed to Judge of the Trial Court---Transfer of case was declined by Supreme
Appellate Court.
State VS IFTIKHAR-UD-DIN
S. 497(1)(5)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss.4 & 5---Act
of terrorism, recovery of explosive substances--- Bail, grant of---Chief Court granted bail to accused---Validity---
Prosecution failed to show that accused had misused the concession of bail granted to him, or he had attempted to
tamper with the prosecution evidence---No ground was agitated for withdrawal of concession of bail granted to
accused---State counsel had submitted that no documentary evidence was available to the effect that material
(explosive substance) allegedly recovered at the instance of accused, was ever sent to concerned laboratory for
test---Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.
State VS ASIF ABBASS
127 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 497(1)(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.147, 149, 341, 504, 506 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
Ss.6 & 7---Rioting, common object, wrongful restraint, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace,
criminal intimidation, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, act of terrorism---
Bail, grant of---Trial Court declined bail to accused, but, Chief Court allowed bail, and accused were ordered to be
released on bail---Validity---Chief Court had taken note of all the legal provisions; and thereafter passed speaking
order---Accused persons remained in jail lock-up for about two months---Challan had been submitted; and the
charge had also been framed---Trial was in progress, and evidence was being recorded---No complaint was on
record to the effect that accused persons had made any attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution, nor
they had misused the concession of bail granted to them---No useful purpose would be served while sending
accused persons in the judicial lock-up, particularly when they were not causing any hindrance in the process of the
trial---Petition for leave to appeal being meritless and without any substance, was dismissed.
FAREED ALAM VS State
Ss. 302, 34, 109 & 114---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.
13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, abetment, act of terrorism,
possessing unlicensed arms---Reappraisal of evidence---Compromise---Complainant moved application seeking
permission for compounding the offence and release of accused persons on the ground of "compromise"---Chief
Court sought the report regarding the genuineness of compromise effected between the parties---Trial Court,
complied with the order of the Chief Court and submitted the report---Statements of the Jirgah members, along with
statements of the legal heirs of the deceased, verified the genuineness of the compromise, and submitted that they
had no objection, if accused persons, were released from the judicial lock-up on the basis of the compromise,
effected between the parties---Jirgah members, present in the court also assured that they were confident that
compromise between the parties was genuine, and would be long lasting, and also peace and tranquility would
prevail in the area---Present was a good case for compounding the matter---Accused persons, were ordered to be
released from the judicial lock-up and were acquitted from the charges.
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Compounding of offence--Term , Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) 1898--345 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
S. 345---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(1)(b) & 7(a)---
Compounding of offence---Fasad-fil-Arz---Murder of unarmed person by members of law enforcement agency---
Victim begging for life and bleeding to death---Cruel and gruesome murder---Such murder would amount to Fasad-
fil-Arz within the meaning of S.311, P.P.C. hence there could be no question of acceptance of any compromise
between the parties---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
128 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

PLD 2014 SC 383,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Compromise--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
1898--345 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Reappraisal of evidence--TERM ,
Ss. 302(b) & 34--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(1)(b) & 7(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
345---Qatl-e-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Compromise---Reappraisal of evidence---Murder of unarmed
person by members of law enforcement agency---Grievous and heinous crime---Sense of fear or insecurity in the
public---Accused and co-accused persons were members of a law enforcement agency, and they had a quarrel with
the deceased at a park---Deceased was surrounded by accused and co-accused, whereafter one of the co-accused
shouted "maromaro", as a result of which the accused fired at the deceased---Deceased pleaded to be taken to
hospital, but accused and co-accused did not do the same, despite presence of an official vehicle at the spot---
Deceased consequently bled to death---Accused deliberately and wilfully shot the deceased at the instigation of the
co-accused persons and they let him bleed to death without offering him any assistance---Such sequence of events
abundantly displayed the common intention and object of the accused and co-accused persons---Gruesome murder
of deceased at the hands of members of law enforcement agency certainly created a sense of terror, insecurity and
panic in the minds and hearts of those who witnessed the scene and the entire public which saw the video of the
incident---Accused had compromised with legal heirs of deceased but offence committed by him and co-accused
persons under S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was not compoundable---Supreme Court however observed
that following the ratio in the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 383), wherein sentence of
death imposed upon convict under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was reduced to imprisonment for life in the
presence of a compromise, the death sentence awarded to present accused should also be reduced to
imprisonment for life---Sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to co-accused persons was maintained---Appeal
was disposed of accordingly.
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS State
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Review of
Supreme Court judgment--Term ,
129 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 345--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860),Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 148, 149 & 337-F(iii)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
Ss.6(m) & (n), 7(a), (c) & (h)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.188---Review of Supreme Court judgment---Murder of
police official while on duty---Act of terrorism---Compounding of offence under S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Scope---Compromise between convict and legal heirs of deceased---Effect---Accused allegedly fired at and
killed a police official during a police raid---Anti-Terrorism Court sentenced accused to death on two counts, one
under S. 302(b), P.P.C and second under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Death sentence awarded to accused was
confirmed by the High Court---Petition for leave to appeal filed by accused before Supreme Court was dismissed,
against which accused had filed a review petition---During pendency of review petition, accused entered into a
compromise with legal heirs of deceased-police official and requested the Supreme Court to accept the said
compromise and acquit him---Validity---Merits of the present case pertaining to offence under S.302(b), P.P.C were
no more required to be dilated upon because of the compromise---Statements of eye-witnesses (police officials) and
recoveries made during investigation established that deceased-police official was murdered when he was on
official duty, and such findings were upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court---Offence under S.353, P.P.C
stood proved against accused as he fired at and killed a police official, who was performing his official duty,
therefore, offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was also established because murder of a police official
without personal enmity amounted to create terror and insecurity in the vicinity---Offence under S.6(2)(n) of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 also stood established as act of accused involved serious violence against a member of police
force---Regarding first count of death sentence under S.302(b), P.P.C, accused entered into a compromise with legal
heirs of deceased and compensation had also been paid, but second count of death under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 had its own implications and was not compoundable under Ss.354(5) & (7), Cr.P.C---Compromise between
parties was accepted (only) to the extent of conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C and accused was acquitted of said
charge---Regarding death sentence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, quantum of said sentence could be
examined in the present case due to its peculiar facts---Sentence of death awarded to accused under S.7 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 was converted into life imprisonment without extending benefit of S.382-B, P.P.C, as the same
was not allowed by Trial Court, High Court and the Supreme Court---Review petition was disposed of accordingly.
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,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--Third Sche ,
Constitutional petition--TERM ,
130 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

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.
KHURRAM WAHEED VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitutional petition--TERM
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-H , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--384 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--506 ,
Ss. 6(1), Cls. (b) & (k), 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.384, 506 & 337-H(2)---Extortion, criminal intimidation,
rash and negligent act endangering human life---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer
of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to regular court---Community---Connotations---Act of accused persons though
was (directed) against an individual yet its impact had to be considered with surrounding circumstances---
Complainant was member of business community running business in a busy area---Ransom was demanded in
such a way by accused persons and the manner in which complainant was directed to proceed to a Chowk coupled
with firing shots at a public place and eight days time (dead line) for arrangement of ransom, might have spread
sense of terror, fear and insecurity in the vicinity complainant was running business---Complainant being member of
a particular community (business community), prosecution case fell within ambit of Cls.(b) and (k) of S.6 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 and the alleged offence was liable to be punished under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---In
view of surge in heinous crimes, outlaws perpetrating such crimes had to be dealt with drastically---Constitutional
petition was dismissed.
MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ VS State
1977 SCMR 20, 1980 PCr.LJ 163, PLD 1977 SC 515, PLD 1978 SC 21,
1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
131 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302(b), 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(a) & 7(a)---Qatl-e-amd, kidnapping for ransom,
common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Both the witnesses had not only rendered discrepant
statements inter se, but also made some self-contradictory depositions---Witnesses of last seen had made certain
improvements in their statements, for which they were duly confronted with their previous statements under S.161,
Cr.P.C.---Evidence of last seen had been fabricated by the Police so as to involve accused persons in the case, and
create a linkage between them and the crime committed---Discrepancies and self-contradictory depositions of both
the prosecution witnesses, had rendered their statement worthless and incredible, which could not be given any
weight---Evidence of last seen, was the weakest type of circumstance, which could easily be manoeuvred by the
prosecution, wherever direct connecting evidence against an accused, did not come in their way---Law required
unimpeachable corroboration of such like evidence, but such particular piece of evidence alone was untrustworthy
and unreliable---Continuous chain of events, without any breach could, establish the guilt of accused, based on
circumstantial evidence, but in the present case, it appeared to be a ragged, shaken and shabby situation which had
dwindled the idea of building an uninterrupted chain by the prosecution---Medical evidence hardly advanced the
prosecution case in plausible terms---Prosecution, in circumstances, had failed to prove the charge against accused
persons beyond reasonable shadow of doubt---Impugned judgment being unsustainable was annulled and
conviction and sentence of accused persons were set aside, they were acquitted of the charge and were directed to
be released, in circumstances.
ATIF ALI VS SPECIAL JUDGE OF ATC-IV, LAHORE
2002 SCMR 908, 2012 SCMR 517,
Ss.302, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly
weapon, every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object---
Cognizance of cases by Anti-Terrorism Court---Determining factors---Demanding Bhatta---Transfer of accused's
case from Anti-Terrorism Court to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Accused demanded Bhatta from deceased
and on refusal murdered his father thereby conveying message to complainant and people living in the area that if
anyone refused accused's demand would suffer the fate of deceased---Occurrence was bound to spread panic and
feeling of insecurity---Under S.6(k) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 demanding Bhatta was offence punishable under
S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Demanding Bhatta constituted a scheduled offence which was triable by Anti-
Terrorism Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Cumulative effect of the contents of F.I.R., attending
circumstances and record of case would determine whether alleged offence fell within purview of any of the
provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Act done by accused created a sense of insecurity among people and was
covered by Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court's order transferring accused's case to regular court
having no cogent and plausible reasons, was set aside.
YOUNAS VS State
132 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(1)(b) & (c)---"Terrorism", meaning of---Scope---For an act to fall within the definition of "terrorism", nexus of the
actions of the wrongdoer must be to terrorize the public in general and to spread the sense of fear and insecurity in
the particular community or sect of people.
YOUNAS VS State
PLD 2003 Lah. 588,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitutional petition--TERM ,
Ss. 6(2)(m), (n) & 23---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---"Terrorism", meaning of---
Scope---Exchange of fire with police contingent---Doubts regarding element of serious violence against police---
Accused persons, 17 in number, allegedly made indiscriminate firing upon a police contingent, snatched an official
rifle and ammunition, and used force and coercion to rescue one of the accused from the police---Despite the fact
that firing upon police contingent was made by 17 persons, no police official received a single scratch---None of the
accused received any fire shot injury at the hands of police---Uniform of none of the police officials was torn---In
presence of a reasonable police contingent, it was not comprehendible as to how official arm and ammunition was
snatched and as to how accused persons managed to rescue one of theirs from the police---Element of involvement
of serious violence against police was lacking in such circumstances---Provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were
not applicable in the present case---Case of accused persons was ordered to be transferred from Anti-Terrorism
Court to the court of plenary jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
LORY VIE PIMENTEL VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.IV, LAHORE
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 ,
Constitutional petition--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--265-D , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-D---Constitution of
Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Act of terrorism---Return of case to Regular Court---
Petitioner/complainant was aggrieved of the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, whereby case was transferred to
the court of regular jurisdiction---Validity---Complainant was working as maid under an agreement in the house of
accused and allegedly she was maltreated and her mobile phone was also snatched---Such act could not be termed
as an act of "terrorism"---Before framing of charge Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court after having considered that facts of
the case did not satisfy ingredients of S.365-A, P.P.C. rightly passed the order of transfer of the case---Petitioner
failed to point out any illegality/infirmity in the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Petition was dismissed in
circumstances.
MUHAMMAD ASIF VS State
133 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

(Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--186 ,
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 353, 109, 34, 427, 201 & 186---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 21(l)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant
from discharge of his duty, abetment, common intention, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees,
causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, obstructing public
servant in discharge of public functions, acts of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Co-accused persons
allegedly killed police officials and other deceased persons---Allegation against accused was that he drove the co-
accused persons to the place of occurrence---Accused was only ascribed role of conspiracy in the F.I.R.---
Occurrence was committed by four unknown persons, but subsequently, complainant made supplementary
statement indicating that accused was driving the car in which the co-accused persons came at the spot and
resorted to firing---Accused was found innocent during investigation and in report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. his name
was put in Column No.2---One of the co-accused who was assigned a role similar to that of accused had already
been released on bail---Accused was also the complainant of an earlier case, wherein a deceased of the present
occurrence and his brother were nominated for the crime, therefore, probability of false implication of accused in the
present case could not be ruled out---Accused was no more required for further investigation---Case was one of
further inquiry---Accused was released on bail in circumstances.
AZHAR HUSSAIN RIZVI VS State
PLD 1967 SC 78, PLD 2000 Kar. 89, PLD 2005 Kar. 344,
1860--302 , Proof--TERM , Qatl-e-amd--Term ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Act of "terrorism"---Qatl-e-amd---Proof---Indiscriminate firing---

Grievance of accused was that Trial Court under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, declined to transfer the case to court of
ordinary jurisdiction---Validity--Wherever any action was taken which created fear and insecurity in any section of
people, such offence would fall within the ambit of case as contemplated under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Mob of 30 / 40 motorcyclists including accused, while carrying dead body from hospital to graveyard, were
indiscriminately firing throughout the way-F.I.R. did not mention that firing was in retaliation of firing from any side---If
there wax no firing on funeral procession then there was no reason of making firing on the way to graveyard---Such
firing was only with the object of creating fear and insecurity in people, which would come within the definition of
"terrorism"---Trial Court on the basis of material available it her was justified in coming to conclusion that case of
accused was within the meaning of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court rightly dismissed application of
accused for sending his case to ordinary Court---High Court declined to set aside the order passed by Trial Court---
Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
BAHADUR VS State
134 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
Ss. 324, 353, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13(d)---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty,
rioting, act of terrorism and possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account of the
occurrence had been furnished by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, being the complainant---Testimony of
prosecution witnesses who were Police Officials, had established act of perpetration by accused---Version of said
witnesses was consistent on material points and facts---Some discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, which were minor in nature, had no bearing; and did not affect the conclusion arrived at by the Trial
Court---Prosecution witnesses, though Police Officials, yet there appeared to be no reason to tell a lie by indicating
accused---Nothing came on record to suggest that the Investigating Agency had motive to set up the witnesses to
depose against accused falsely---Truthfulness of the ocular testimony, could not be questioned on minor
contradictions or discrepancies---Police Officials were as good witnesses as any other citizen, unless any mala fide
was established against them---Deposition of the Police Officials, could not be brushed aside simply on the bald
allegation that they belonged to the Police department---Accused who had pleaded that case against him was false,
and had been registered due to inimical terms with the informer on the dispute of a house, could not produce
documentary proof to prove said plea---Counsel for accused, had not been able to point out any misreading or non-
reading of evidence or contradiction on material particulars in the statements of the prosecution witnesses resulting
into miscarriage of justice---Prosecution had succeeded to establish its case and accused had failed to prove his
innocence---Prosecution having established its case against accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, no
reason was available to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court in recording conviction and
sentence against accused.
VEJAY KUMAR VS State
2011 YLR 19, PLD 2005 SC 530, PLD 2009 Kar. 7, PLD 2009 SC 11,
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
1898--435 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--439 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , Transfer of Case--TERM ,
Ss. 6(1) & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 365-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435, 439 &
561-A---Qatl-e-amd and kidnapping for ransom---Act of terrorism---Transfer of case---Minor boy of 6 - 7 years was
kidnapped for ransom, his mouth was tapped and was put in jute bag, to keep him silent in order to avoid attention
of people towards them, which resulted in his death and subsequently accused threw his dead body in water
channel---Application of accused for transfer of case to Court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed by Anti-
Terrorism Court---Validity---Such barbarity had created fear, panic and sense of insecurity among people of
vicinity---Act of accused persons squarely fell within the ambit of "terrorism" attracting jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism
Court in terms of S.6(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court had correctly assumed jurisdiction declining transfer
of case to Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Order passed by Trial Court was not perverse, nor suffering from any
infirmity and it did not require interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Ss. 435 & 439,
Cr.P.C. or inherent power under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., which could only be invoked in exceptional cased of extraordinary
nature and not in each and every case---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
135 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

RAZI KHAN ALMANI VS JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, HYDERABAD
2000 PCr.LJ 1195, 2007 YLR 155, 2010 MLD 1412,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-E , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code
Remand of Case--TERM ,
Ss. 302, 114, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-E--- Act of terrorism, qatl-e-amd,
abetment, common intention---Remand of case---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Applicant/Investigating
Officer requested for grant of further remand of accused in Police custody, but Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, instead
of granting remand of accused in Police Custody, had granted remand in judicial custody for 7 days---Applicant had
filed revision against said order contending that impugned order would affect the process of investigation of the case
for the reason that more evidence was to be collected with the cooperation and disclosure of accused and
statement of his daughter---Allegation was that court had shown special generosity to accused mainly on the reason
that accused being a Sessions Judge, court had paid accused due respect, though he had not complained bodily or
mental torture from the hands of Police---Impugned order, though neither could be challenged invoking revisional
jurisdiction, nor jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., but it was an appropriate case where extraordinary jurisdiction
could be invoked under Art. 199 of Constitution---High Court converted revision application as constitutional petition
and held that remand could be extended, if the court was satisfied that no bodily harm had been or would be caused
to accused; provided that total period of such remand would not exceed ninety days---Trial Court had failed to
appreciate the request made by applicant/Investigating Officer for grant of further Police remand---Impugned
remand order, granting remand of accused in judicial custody, instead of Police custody was illegal, arbitrary and
against law; which would affect the smooth investigation of crime---Impugned order was set aside, with the direction
to the Trial Court to decide afresh the request of applicant on merits and in accordance with law after affording fair
opportunity of hearing to both sides.
HAJAN VS State
1997 SCMR 412, 2001 YLR 1027, 2010 PCr.LJ 852, 2011 MLD 867, 2012 PCr.LJ 415, 2013 MLD 899, PLD 1965
Kar. 31,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--365-A ,
136 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(2)(e)---Kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Unexplained delay of 55 days in lodging F.I.R., had created serious doubt;
and it could be gathered that F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant after due deliberation, negotiation, discussion
and afterthought with sole object; and ulterior motive to get accused persons convicted---Accused persons were not
identified as culprits who had allegedly kidnapped the complainant---Culprits who allegedly received ransom, were
muffled faces---Prosecution witness, who allegedly remained in contact with the culprits through mobile phone, and
negotiated, and settled the quantum of the ransom, had neither mentioned said mobile number in his statement,
recorded by the Police, nor disclosed in his evidence recorded before the Trial Court---Prosecution witness, who
allegedly made payment of ransom amount to the culprits, neither mentioned serial numbers of currency notes, nor
any identification marks were mentioned by the witness---Alleged recovery of cash from the house of accused
persons could not be believed---Prosecution witnesses had introduced dishonest improvements in their statements
during the trial, and made conflicting depositions---Abductees, were not recovered from accused, nor any ransom
money was proved to have been demanded by him, or paid to him---No identification parade had been held for
identification of accused; and prosecution had failed to establish his nexus with the alleged episode---Place of
captivity was neither pointed out to the Investigating Officer, nor such mashirnama was prepared---Such missing
piece of evidence alone, was fatal dent to the prosecution case, when the complainant had mentioned the place of
captivity in F.I.R.---People of different castes were residing adjacent to the place of incident, but none from the
locality was examined by the Police, or produced before the Trial Court to prima facie establish that the complainant
was abducted---Series of admissions and material contradictions, had made the prosecution story highly doubtful---
Prosecution had failed to bring guilt of accused persons to home, and charge could not be established beyond any
shadow of doubt---Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside, accused were acquitted from the
charge and were released, in circumstances.
UMER FAROOQUE VS JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, MIRPURKHAS
2007 SCMR 142, 2011 PCr.LJ 1370, PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2003 Lah. 588, PLD 2009 SC 11,
Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--337-H , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--364 ,
137 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 337-F(ii), 337-H(2), 364, 147, 148 & 149---Constitution of
Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Act of terrorism, qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, causing
badiah, rash or negligent act, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, rioting, common object---Application by
both the parties under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Anti-Terrorism
to the ordinary Court of Session, was declined---Validity---Contents of the F.I.Rs. and the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses in both the cases had not been taken by the Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court with particular
reference to application of the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---No finding had been recorded to the effect as
to whether the alleged incident struck terrorism and created any sense of insecurity in the public at large---Nothing
had been stated in both the F.I.Rs. by the complainants, which could suggest that alleged incident, which reportedly
took place at late hour at night, was witnessed by large number of people of the vicinity creating terror and sense of
insecurity in the public or society---No lethal weapons i.e. Kalashnikov and Repeater as alleged in the F.I.Rs. were
used in the incident---Judge of the Anti-Terrorism Court, while passing impugned orders, had also failed to examine,
as to whether the ingredients of alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under
Ss.6, 7, 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---No finding had been recorded by the Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court with
regard to gravity and heinousness of the alleged crime, nor the motive, object, design or purpose behind alleged
offence had been discussed in the impugned orders---Anti-Terrorism Court had merely observed that alleged crime
had the tendency to create terror and fear in the society---Neither any reason had been given, nor reference to any
material or evidence had been made by the Anti-Terrorism Court for such conclusion---For the purpose of attracting
the provisions of any section or Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the element of striking terror or creation of
the sense of fear and insecurity in the public at large, by doing any act or thing, was sine qua non---Merely filing of
bail application for the release of accused before Anti-Terrorism Court, would not debar accused from raising an
objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court and to seek transfer of the case to the court of
ordinary jurisdiction under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Present cases were not triable by Anti-Terrorism Court
as the ingredients of Ss. 6 & 7 of said Act, were not attracted to the facts of the cases---Impugned orders declining
transfer of case to ordinary Court of Session were set aside, in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD HANIF alias POCHO VS State
1994 PCr.LJ 1057, 1994 PCr.LJ 409, 2012 SCMR 522,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Benefit of Doubt--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code
138 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 149, 353, 324 & 404---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(a)(b)---Qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force
to deter public servant from discharging of his duty, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, dishonestly misappropriation of
property and act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Out of five accused persons, two were
identified by the complainant, but complainant could not give the features and figures of remaining three unknown
accused mentioned in the F.I.R.---Source of head light of the vehicle in the midnight was a weak type of evidence
regarding seeing a person from a distance of about one or two acres---Recovery of kalashnikov from the cattle pan
of accused was quite doubtful---Accused had also been acquitted from the case under S.13(e) of Arms Ordinance,
1965---Identification parade of accused held after a considerable delay of about six days had lost its sanctity, when
such delay was not explained---Prosecution had examined in all 13 witnesses including the eye-witnesses, but no
tangible or unimpeachable evidence had been brought on record to prove the charge against accused---Recognition
of accused at the place of incident from a considerable distance, was highly doubtful; and his identification by the
prosecution witnesses after about 6 months, was also doubtful---Many circumstances existed creating doubt in the
prosecution case, accused was entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt---Prosecution having failed to prove
charges against accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, impugned judgment was set aside, accused was
acquitted from the charges, and was directed to be released, in circumstances.
BAHADUR VS State
PLD 2003 SC 704,
Ss. 365-A, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Kidnapping for receiving ransom amount,
rioting, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Incident of kidnapping of baby aged about 4/5 years, had taken
place in presence of her father and prosecution witnesses---Report was made by the complainant to the Police
without any loss of time, and the complainant had fully supported the contents of F.I.R.---Accused was apprehended
after encounter between Police and accused in presence of Police Officials, and baby was got recovered from
possession of accused---All witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, but nothing had come on record to
discredit their evidence---Witnesses were natural and independent, who had no enmity with accused---Merely
claiming enmity with the complainant over a house, without bringing any evidence on record in proof of such claim,
was not sufficient to believe the plea of accused with regard to plea of enmity with the complainant---Non-
examination of one eye-witness, was not fatal to prosecution case, as the prosecution was not required to examine
each and every witness in the case---Quality and not the quantity of the evidence would decide the fate of criminal
case---Confidence-inspiring ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses was also corroborated by the fact that
accused was caught hold at the spot along with pistol and kidnapped baby---In absence of any error or illegality in
the impugned judgment warranting interference by High Court, same was maintained and appeal was dismissed, in
circumstances.
SUNDER JAKHRANI VS Haji MUHAMMAD NOOR
139 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 23, 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 364---Application for transfer of case from Anti-
Terrorism Court to Court of Session, dismissal of---Evidence of complainant and prosecution witnesses not recorded
to determine nature of offence---Effect---Accused and co-accused persons allegedly caused murder of three
persons in front of their relatives after abducting them on gun-point---Plea of accused that present case was one of
previous enmity and personal vendetta between the parties, therefore, offence alleged neither created any threat to
a section of public or community nor it created any sense of fear or insecurity in the society---Application of accused
under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of Session was
rejected---Validity---Alleged offence was committed on a path during day time and allegedly reckless firing was
made with weapons of prohibited bore---Admittedly after submission of challan in Anti-Terrorism Court, the
prosecution could not examine the ocular, circumstantial, medical and expert witnesses nor any other material was
available to ascertain whether any panic, fear and insecurity had been created in the minds of people, therefore at
such premature stage severity and nature of alleged offence could not be determined---Plea raised by accused
might be agitated and decided after recording of evidence of complainant and atleast two eye-witnesses/star
witnesses by the prosecution and thereafter the accused was at liberty to repeat the application for transfer of case
from Anti-Terrorism Court to court of plenary jurisdiction---Application was disposed of accordingly.
MUHAMMAD UMER MANGRIO VS State
1982 PCr.LJ 415, 2008 MLD 728,
1860--216-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 353 & 216-A---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal
force to deter public servants from discharging of his duty, harbouring robbery or dacoity act of terrorism---
Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Ordinary Court was dismissed---Validity---Taking
cognizance and forming opinion regarding an offence to be either scheduled one or not, could not be treated as two
separate acts, which were to be performed by the court at different times---Court would take cognizance of a given
offence, only when it was without any doubt with regard to its jurisdiction to try the offence by examining the material
presented to it in terms of S.173, Cr.P.C.---Law had provided for one exception that a Magistrate taking cognizance
of offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, would without recording the evidence send the case to court of
session for trial in terms of S.190(3), Cr.P.C.---Such exception was entirely cognate with design contemplated under
S.193, Cr.P.C.---Court was competent to make up its mind as to whether the offence was scheduled one or not at
the time of taking cognizance of offence on the basis of material submitted to it in shape of challan---In case the
court decided in affirmative, it would proceed with the matter in accordance with law and it would not restrict the
jurisdiction of the court to hold otherwise at a subsequent stage, but the exercise of jurisdiction to transfer the case
to a regular court, could be resorted to by the court on the basis of new material brought before it, either by
prosecution or defence---Scheme of law in terms of S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, appeared to have enjoined
upon the court to minutely examine all the material presented at the time of challan---Impugned order appeared to
have been passed in haste which did not reconcile with the judicial norms and requirements of law---Court could
have waited and postponed the decision on the application of accused till the submission of challan to form its
opinion that the offence was scheduled one or not, instead of dismissing it in hasty manner---Impugned order being
not sustainable under the law, was set aside---Application of accused would be deemed to be pending before the
court, which would be decided afresh, evaluating the material submitted to it.
140 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MUMTAZ VS State
2011 SCMR 1430, 2014 SCMR 07, PLD 2007 SC 31,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A ,
Ss.6(2)(m) & 7(h)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Serious coercion or intimidation of a public
servant in order to force him to discharge or to refrain from discharging his lawful duties---Sentence, suspension
of---Unexplained delay in registration of F.I.R.---Accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five
years---Validity---Delay of five days in registration of F.I.R., was not explained, whereas Presiding Officer, who was
complainant in the case, did not report the matter to appropriate forum in accordance with law on the date of alleged
incident---Complainant stated in his evidence that he did not give name of accused persons at the time of
registration of F.I.R., nor he could identify accused produced in court to be the persons who committed alleged
offence---No incriminating material was recovered from accused nor any other evidence had been produced by
prosecution which could directly connect accused with alleged offence---Trial Court had convicted accused under
Ss. 6(2)(m) & h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without even recording any finding as to whether alleged offence fell
within the definition of terrorism or not---Accused persons had no previous criminal record and they had made out a
case for their release on bail by suspending sentence awarded to them during pendency of appeal---Bail was
UMAR FAROOQUE VS State
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Proof--TERM , Qatl-e-amd--
Term ,
S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Qatl-e-amd---Act of terrorism---Proof---Tripple murder---

Complainant applied before Trial Court for transfer of the case to Anti-Terrorism Court which was dismissed---Plea
raised by complainant was that murder of three persons caused terror amongst people of locality---Validity---F.I.R.
showed that incident was result of previous enmity between parties over a murder---Killing of three persons did not
bring case within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---While deciding question of jurisdiction, it was
necessary to examine ingredients of alleged occurrence and that the same had any nexus with object of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---For determining whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object
design or purpose behind the same had to be seen---If act of accused was simply result of previous enmity or
personal vendetta, the same would not attract the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Offence committed by
accused was not covered by S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by
Trial Court as the same did not suffer from any illegality---Petition was dismissed in circumstance.
WAJID ALI VS CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1
2007 SCMR 142,
141 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM ,
Criminal intimidation--Term , Ingredients--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--503 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--506
,
Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.503 & 506---Act of terrorism---Scope---Criminal intimidation---
Ingredients---Appreciation of evidence---"Action" as defined in subsection (2) of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if
qualified the condition of involvement of the use of fire-arms, explosive, or any other weapon, would fall within
meanings of "terrorism"---In the present case, it was not alleged that any of the person, forming mob, was armed
with any weapon; alleged resistance, offered by the mob, therefore, could not be an act of 'terrorism'---Simple
threats, were not sufficient to constitute criminal intimidation, within the scope of S.503, P.P.C., unless it was caused
to a person to do an act, who was not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act, which that person was legally
bound to do---Ingredients of criminal intimidation, being missing in the matter, Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
were not applicable in the matter.
NAZAKAT ALI VS State
Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(m)(n), 7, 13 & 23---Qatl-e-amd, common intention, act of
terrorism---Dismissal of application for transfer of case from Anti-terrorism Court to regular court by accused---
Validity---Sufficient material had been collected to create a nexus between the Scheduled offence allegedly
committed by accused---Accused had launched an assault upon the member of Police Force (S.H.O.) as to deter
him from performing his official duties; and had committed his murder---If such allegations were accepted as correct
on the basis of material available on record, 'actus reus' attributed to accused would attract the provisions of S.6(2)
(m)(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Accused being subordinate to deceased S.H.O., by such act of accused it had
created sense of insecurity in Police Officials---Anti-Terrorism Court had exclusive jurisdiction to try the case and
had rightly framed the charge against accused---No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order had been pointed out
and it was based upon sound reasons---Impugned order was maintained---Petition being without any merit was
dismissed, with direction to the Ante-Terrorism Court to proceed with the case expeditiously, as provided in the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997.
PERVAIZ IQBAL VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.III
2007 SCMR 142, PLD 1998 SC 1445,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Terrorism--TERM ,
142 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S.6---Terrorism---Components and constituents of terrorism detailed. The 'purpose', the motivation, the 'actus reus'
and the 'mens rea' constitute the components of terrorism or an act of terrorism. An action designed to coerce and
intimidate or overawe the government or the public or section of public or community or sect or, if such an action is
designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in society in the backdrop of religious, sectarian or ethnic cause,
shall constitute an act of terrorism or a terrorist act. To create fear or insecurity in the society through a crime is not
by itself terrorism unless the motive or the design or the actus reus or mens rea pre-exists for creating such fear or
insecurity in the society. A private crime resulting into fear or insecurity as a by-product, a fall out or an unintended
consequence of fright etc. cannot be termed as an act of terrorism. Mere gravity, heinousness, gruesomeness or
shocking nature of any offence, committed in pursuance of personal enmity or in settlement of personal vendetta is
not by itself sufficient to brand such crime as a terrorist act or an act of terrorism.
PLD 1998 SC 1445,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Determination--Term ,
Ss. 6 & 7---"Act of terrorism"---Determination---Principles---Nexus has to be shown between the act done and the
objective or design by which the offence was committed, to formulate an opinion whether or not such offence could
be termed an "act of terrorism"---In the absence of such linkage it cannot be held that the offence committed in the
background of personal enmity or vendatta, transmitting a wave of terror or fright or horror, was necessarily an act of
terrorism.
2007 SCMR 142, PLD 1998 SC 1445,
Penal Code 1860--337-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-L , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--427 ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/ 148/ 149/ 427/ 337-A(i)/ 337-F(iii)/ 337-L(2)--- Constitution of
Pakistan, Art.199---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting with deadly weapons, causing hurts---Constitutional
petition---"Act of terrorism", determination of---Nexus had to be shown between the act done and the objective or
design by which the offence had been committed, to formulate an opinion whether or not such offence could be
termed an act of terrorism---In the absence of such linkage it could not be held that the offence committed in the
background of personal enmity or vendatta, transmitting a wave of terror or fright or horror, was necessarily an act of
terrorism---Complainant and his co-witnesses had categorically stated during investigation that the accused
mentioned in the F.I.R. had a personal motive and grudge to commit the offence, therefore the crime committed by
them, regardless its repercussions, could not be dubbed an "act of terrorism"---Impugned order passed by Anti-
Terrorism Court transferring the case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction on the application of accused moved under
S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was well-reasoned and based on relevant law---Constitutional petition was
dismissed in limine accordingly.
143 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM


SAIF ULLAH SALEEM VS State
PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2007 SC 571,
1997--SCHEDULE , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--336-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F ,
Sched, Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 336-B & 337-F(i)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.
199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---
Application for transfer of case of the petitioners-accused was dismissed by the Special Court---Validity---Offences
mentioned in the Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 should have nexus with the objects mentioned in Ss. 6 and 7
of the Act---Nothing had been brought on record to show that the occurrence created terror, panic or sense of
insecurity among people and the society---Even in F.I.R., got registered by the complainant, no allegation of creating
terror was levelled---Motive for the occurrence was enmity inter-se the parties and for that reason, the application of
S.7 of the Act which primarily required the spread of sense of insecurity and fear in common mind was lacking---
Occurrence took place in a room of a hotel which was not a public place and the element of striking terror or
creating sense of fear in the people or any section of the people was not made discernible in the F.I.R.---Case
registered against the petitioners-accused was triable by the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Constitutional petition
was allowed and S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was ordered to be deleted and petition moved under S.23 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 was accepted---Proceedings of the trial of the case were ordered to be transferred to the court
of ordinary jurisdiction.
GHULAM FAREED VS State
PLD 2009 SC 11,
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Determination--Term , Motive--
TERM ,
Ss. 6, 7(a) & 7(c)---Act of terrorism---Determination---Motive---Alleged motive behind occurrence was suspicion by
co-accused that paternal uncle of deceased had illicit relations with wife of co-accused---Effect---Application of S. 6
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, primarily required spread of sense of insecurity and fear in common mind and the same
was lacking---Occurrence neither reflected any act of terrorism nor it was sectarian matter and occurrence was
result of previous enmity between the parties---Accused was wrongly convicted under S. 7(a) & (c) of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997.
144 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MUHAMMAD YAKOOB GOPANG VS PRESIDING OFFICER, HYDERABAD
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--193 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--384 ,
S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.193, 384, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(2)(k)---False
evidence, extortion, abetment, common intention---Quashing of proceedings, application for---Trial Court had
observed in its judgment that applicant/complainant and Mashir had given false statements before the court and
notices under S.193, P.P.C. were ordered to be issued against them---Plea of the applicant was that Mashir had not
filed separate reply to notice under S.193, P.P.C., but he adopted the reply submitted by him, despite the fact that
notice issued against the Mashir had been withdrawn, while notice against him was still pending---Applicant had
contended that he was being insisted upon for personal appearance, which was discrimination on the part of the
Trial Court---Validity---No previous statement of the applicant was recorded on oath, in such circumstances, there
was nothing before the Trial Court which constituted an offence of perjury under S.193, P.P.C., against the
applicant---Notice issued to applicant/complainant, therefore, amounted to abuse of process of court, which could
not be allowed as High Court had powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure
ends of justice---Show-cause notice under S.193, P.P.C., issued against applicant, and proceedings emanating
therefrom were quashed, in circumstances.
ADAM HUSSAIN VS State
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM ,
Benefit of Doubt--TERM ,
Ss.6 & 7(i)---Act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Exonerating by complainant---Benefit of doubt---

Complainant had filed suit for Khula and it was alleged that on the day of occurrence her husband and others
attempted on complainant to murder her in court premises---Trial Court convicted accused under S. 7(i) of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentenced him to five years imprisonment while husband of complainant and another co-
accused were acquitted---Validity---Prosecution could not establish its case against accused without reasonable
doubt---Contradictory evidence of prosecution witnesses and deposition of complainant exonerating accused from
alleged crime had made prosecution case doubtful, benefit of which was required to be extended to accused---Trial
Court wrongfully declined benefit of doubt to accused---While awarding sentence to accused under S. 7(i) of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, Trial Court did not record any finding to the effect that alleged act of accused was an act of
terrorism which created terror and sense of insecurity in public-at-large---Judgment passed by Trial Court was silent
about application of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, whereas nothing had been observed by Trial Court about
gravity of alleged offence---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he
was acquitted of the charge--Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
AMEER BUX alias GHOUS BUX alias GHOUSO BROHI alias SUDHIR BROHI VS State
1987 PCr.LJ 2173, 2012 SCMR 215,
145 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM ,
Ss.6(2)(e) & 7(e)---Kidnapping for ransom--- Appreciation of evidence---Identification of accused in court---Effect---

Accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for kidnapping for ransom---Validity---Accused was
identified in court, therefore, his presence at place of occurrence and kidnapping abductee for ransom could not be
disputed---Evidence of payment of ransom through evidence of prosecution witness stood proved beyond any
shadow of doubt---Despite lengthy cross-examination prosecution witness could not be shattered by defence---Trial
Court had rightly believed prosecution evidence, which was confidence-inspiring---High Court declined to disagree
with appreciation of evidence by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
KOURO VS State
1990 PCr.LJ 2042, 1995 SCMR 1345, 1999 SCMR 1220, 2006 SCMR 340, 2007 YLR 211, 2009 SCMR 135, 2011
SCMR 401, 2012 PCr.LJ 1132, 2012 PCr.LJ 986, PLD 1994 SC 178,
Police encounter--Term , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
Ss. 302, 324, 353 & 427---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge
of his duty, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, possession of illegal weapons, acts of
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Police encounter---Consistent witness statements---Medical evidence
corroborating ocular version---Effect---Accused persons, who belonged to a group of dacoits, attacked the police
party during an encounter, which resulted in death of three police officials and also caused injuries to four others---
All witnesses supported the prosecution case and reiterated their earlier statements recorded during investigation---
No material discrepancy was found in statements of witnesses, which could be termed as material contradiction---
Ocular version was substantiated by natural and credible witnesses, including injured witnesses/ police-officials---
Arrest of accused persons at the place of occurrence along with sophisticated weapons was proved through trust-
worthy evidence--- Prosecution witnesses/police-officials were cross-examined at length, but defence failed to shake
their credibility and veracity---Although one co-accused was acquitted by Trial Court on basis of his plea of alibi, but
present accused persons never claimed/agitated such defence plea---Acquitted co-accused had not examined any
witness in his defence nor produced any document to substantiate his plea of alibi, therefore, prosecution case
could not be made doubtful on basis of acquittal of said co-accused---Although private witnesses were not arranged,
but in circumstances of the occurrence, it was neither practical nor advisable to arrange private witnesses as it
would have amounted to putting lives of private persons in danger---Medical evidence was not in contradiction with
ocular evidence---Prosecution successfully proved the charge against accused persons through an unbroken chain
of ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence---High Court dismissed appeal of accused persons, and issued
show-cause notice to the acquitted co-accused to show as to why judgment of acquittal in his favour should not be
set-aside---Case was remanded to the Trial Court to consider acquittal of co-accused.
GHULAM SARWAR VS State
146 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

(Cr.P.C) 1898--526 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-H , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--386 , Pakistan Penal Code
Ss.6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 386, 387, 506(2), 504 & 337-H(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), 5.526---Act of terrorism, extortion by putting a person to fear of death, or of grievous hurt in order to commit
extortion, criminal intimidation and rash and negligent act---Application for transfer of case to .regular court---
Complainant had alleged in F.I.R. that two months prior to the incident, accused had demanded `Bhatta' from him,
but no F.I.R. of the incident was lodged---F.I.R. and other material collected during investigation revealed that no
offence triable under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was made out, for the reason that element of striking of terror, or
creation sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people was made out---Ingredients of
extortion of money as defined in S.6(2)(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not made out from the fact of the case---
Anti-Terrorism Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to try the case---Impugned order was suffering from illegality, and
was not sustainable under the law--Application was allowed by the High Court with direction to the Trial Court to
transfer the case to the Court of Session, having jurisdiction in the matter, in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD AMEEN VS GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Home Secretary, Karachi
2003 PCr.LJ 762, 2005 SCMR 951, PLD 2007 SC 571,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code
Ss. 384/ 386/ 506/ 511/ 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(1), 6(2)(k) &7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.
199---Constitutional petition---Extortion, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, criminal
intimidation, common intention, demand of extortion money (bhatta)---Petition for quashing of F.I.R. and transfer of
case from Anti-Terrorism Court, dismissal of---Allegation against accused persons was that on several occasions
they entered a factory and demanded extortion money (bhatta) from its owner; that they threatened to commit
murder and set the factory on fire, and that they locked the factory by ousting its workers---Contentions of accused
persons were that they were members of a labour union and had been implicated in the case due to enmity, and that
offence alleged did not fall within the ambit of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore it should be transferred to
an ordinary court---Validity---Statements of witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C. fully corroborated the version in the
F.I.R.---Statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 164, Cr.P.C. fully supported the main allegation regarding
demand of extortion money (bhatta) and consequences in case of non-compliance---F.I.R. reflected that accused
persons duly armed with weapons entered into the factory premises and demanded extortion money on several
occasions and also locked the factory by ousting its workers, which linked with the definition of terrorism provided in
Ss. 6(1) and 6(2)(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Acts alleged against accused persons clearly created sense of fear
or insecurity in the society---Accused persons had failed to establish any previous enmity or private vendetta for
implicating them in the present case---Neither any application under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had been
moved for transfer of case to an ordinary court nor any application under S. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. for quashment
of proceedings, instead accused persons had approached the High Court directly---Constitutional petition was
147 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

ISHAQ ALI VS State
2012 MLD 158,
S. 6---Act of terrorism, determination of---Perusal of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 revealed that Anti-Terrorism
Court had the jurisdiction to try the case, if an offence was made out with an intention to strike terror in the public or
in a section of public---Act should be designed to create a sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the general
public---For determining whether an action fell under the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the averments
made in the F.I.R. and allegations raised in such regard were of prime importance---While examining such offence it
was to be seen that the offence had a nexus with the object of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and was squarely
covered under Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Case was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court when any
of the condition laid down in section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not fulfilled.
ISHAQ ALI VS State
2002 SCMR 908, 2003 SCMR 1323, 2011 PCr.LJ 1370, 2012 MLD 158, PLD 2005 SC 530, PLD 2006 SC 109,
Ss. 6(i) & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 393 & 34---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit robbery, common
intention---Act of terrorism, determination of---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Sessions Court---
According to F.I.R. accused persons came to a shop with the intention to commit robbery, and after failing they
started firing at the deceased persons--- Case was transferred from Anti-Terrorism Court to Sessions Court on an
application filed by accused persons under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity---For determining whether an
action fell under the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the averments made in the F.I.R. and allegations
raised in such regard were of prime importance---F.I.R. categorically stated that accused persons stopped at the
front of the shop with an intention to commit robbery and when they were stopped, they started firing upon the
deceased persons---Present case pertained to robbery with murder committed for private gains and offence was not
committed with the design or purpose as contemplated under any of the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Case had been rightly transferred from Anti-Terrorism Court to Sessions Court---Revision application was
dismissed accordingly.
BISMILLAH KHAN VS State
S. 6---Act of terrorism, determination of---Scope---Under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, "terrorism" was determined
from the criminal act designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the general public, disturbing
even tempo of life and tranquillity of society.
148 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

BISMILLAH KHAN VS State
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A
,
Ss. 23 & 6(2)(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-A---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of
Session---Act of terrorism---Scope---Business dealing between the parties---Kidnapping for payment of a due
amount---Accused persons were alleged to have kidnapped the alleged abductee for ransom---Alleged abductee
was later recovered by the police---Perusal of F.I.R., statement of alleged abductee under S.161, Cr.P.C. and other
material collected during investigation showed that there was a business dealing between the parties, and cheques
were issued by the complainant party, which got dishonoured on presentation, therefore, ingredients of S.365-A,
P.P.C. were not satisfied from the material collected during investigation---Ordinary crimes like the present one, were
not to be tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court, while dismissing application of accused
persons for transfer of case, itself observed that three cheques had been issued by the alleged abductee---Anti-
Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the present case---Revision application was allowed with a direction to Anti-
Terrorism Court to transfer the case to the Court of Session.
QAISER BALOCH VS State
2000 SCMR 1086,
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--186 ,
Ss. 23 & 6(n)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 353, 186, 34---Application for transfer of case from Anti-
Terrorism Court to Sessions Court, dismissal of---Act of terrorism---Serious violence against members of the police
force---Scope---Accused persons had fired upon a police party with automatic weapons in order to deter them from
discharging their official duty---Accused persons submitted an application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
before the Anti-Terrorism Court for transfer of case to an ordinary court, however the same was rejected on the
basis that it was not essential that police party received injuries during the occurrence but it was enough that they
were intimidated from doing their public duty and were refrained from discharging their lawful duties---Validity---
Record showed that accused persons had fired upon the police party and deterred them from discharging their
official duties---Empties of automatic weapons used by accused persons were recovered from the place of
occurrence---Act of accused clearly showed serious violence against members of police force and created terror in
the area---Offence clearly fell under S.6(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly rejected
application of accused persons for transfer of case---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
EIDAL KHAN METLO VS IMAM ALI alias BALI
2003 SCMR 1323, 2008 MLD 840, 2011 PCr.LJ 1370, 2012 SCMR 517, PLD 2005 SC 530,
149 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7 & 23--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/353/ 148/149---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---
Scope---Attack on a police picket located in a remote area whether an "act of terror"---Scope---Accused persons
had allegedly made an assault on a police picket, which resulted in the death of a police official---Police picket was
situated in a remote area with no public in its vicinity---Anti-Terrorism Court allowed application of accused under
S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and transferred the case to the Court of Session on the basis that complainant and
eye-witnesses had not mentioned that the firing by accused persons created harassment, fear, terror and insecurity
in the minds of the public---Legality---While deciding applicability of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the
phrase 'action' carried more weight than the phrase "designed to"---Place of incident, in the present case, was a
police picket which was normally established in an area to ensure safety and security of the people of the
area---"Action" i.e. manner of offence, in the present case, was an attack upon the police picket---Such action leads
to an alarming situation and impression upon the people that, if police officials and police posts were not safe then
what impact would it have on them---Such actions showed that there was lawlessness and the public at large felt
serious effects of insecurity, lawlessness and uncertainty as a result---Present case was not one of private vendetta
and accused persons deliberately and intentionally assaulted the police picket with deadly weapons---"Action",
taken by the accused persons in the present case, could not be presumed to have remained unnoticed by the
locality nor could it be said to be an ordinary offence---Present case was a case of terrorism within the jurisdiction of
the Anti-Terrorism Court---Impugned order of Anti-Terrorism Court was illegal and not maintainable---Revision
application was allowed accordingly.
NIAZ AHMED VS State
1992 MLD 287, 2001 PCr.LJ 199, 2004 PCr.LJ 1878, 2012 SCMR 517, PLD 1998 Lah. 318, PLD 1998 SC 1445,
PLD 2000 Kar. 89, PLD 2003 Lah. 588, PLD 2005 SC 530,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Duty of police--Term , Proof--
TERM ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Application for transfer of case, dismissal of---Terrorism, act of---Proof--Duty of police---Scope---
F.I.R. was registered against the accused (Station House Officer) on the allegation that he had illegally detained a
person at a private place and at the time of recovery proceedings he used weapons against the raiding Magistrate---
Accused was aggrieved of cognizance taken by Anti-Terrorism Court and sought transfer of the same to court of
ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Accused in violation of law kept detenues in illegal custody at private place though
he was under legal obligation to act strictly in accordance with law, which prima facie proved that he acted contrary
to law hence committed offence of malfeasance by detaining private person in his custody---Accused also caused
serious deterrence in legal duty of Magistrate by making direct firing and snatched detenues from the custody of
Magistrate---Manner of offences committed by accused was sufficient to hold that prima facie he was guilty of
committing serious offence of terrorism---Police officers were always supposed to act in aid of innocence as powers,
jurisdiction and authority vested in them was never meant to exploit the same and they had been entrusted sacred
duty of creating a sense of security and peace among individuals while creating a sense of terror and fear among
criminals---Accused failed to make out a case where interference of High Court was required and he even failed to
point out any illegality in the orders passed by Trial Court, which were otherwise legal, well justified and maintained
under law--- Application for transfer of case was dismissed in circumstances.
150 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

SHAHRUKH JATOI VS State
PLD 2003 SC 224,
S. 6---Terrorism---Scope---Whether particular act was act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design and
purpose behind the said act was to be seen and it was also to be seen as to whether the said act had created sense
of fear and insecurity in the public or in section of the public or community or in any sect and where action resulted
in striking terror or creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in
particular area it amounted to "terror" and such action fell within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and
shall be triable by Special Court constituted for such purpose.
SHAHRUKH JATOI VS State
2011 PCr.LJ 1370, 2012 SCMR 517, PLD 2005 SC 530,
Ss. 23, 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 354, 109, 216 & 34---Act of terrorism, qatl-e-amd, assault to
woman with intent to outrage her modesty, abetment, harbouring offender and common intention---Transfer of case
from Anti-Terrorism Court to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Application for transfer of case of the accused was
dismissed by the Special Court---Validity---Offence was committed on the road and by such act of the accused,
young boy was shot dead by automatic weapon over petty matter---Act of accused was designed to create sense of
fear and insecurity and helplessness in the minds of general public disturbing the tempo of the life and tranquility of
the society and provisions of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were attracted and impact of such act terrorized
society at large by creating panic and fear in their minds---Presence of personal enmity would not exclude the
jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court and neither motive nor intent for commission of offence was relevant for the
purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court---Act of accused created sense of helplessness and
insecurity amongst the people of area where offence was committed and did destabilize the public at large---Present
case would fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Order of the Trial Court did not suffer from any
material irregularity or illegality and the same was maintained.
MUHAMMAD SHOAIB VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Conviction in absentia--Term ,
151 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(2)(b)(k) & 7(c)(h)---Conviction in absentia---Accused persons against whom conviction had been awarded in
absentia; and accused who had been shown absconder, and whose case had been kept on dormant, were not
present before the Trial Court---No opportunity whatsoever to defend their case on merits was provided to them---
Impugned judgment also did not suggest that accused had deliberately avoided the process of the court, or
remained wilfully absent from the court---Conviction awarded to accused persons in absentia, were set aside, and
case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same after providing them proper opportunity of being heard---
Accused persons would surrender before the Trial Court and would attend the court on each and every date---
During the trial accused persons would remain on bail; if they would misuse the concession of bail, Trial Court would
be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
MUHAMMAD SHOAIB VS State
Act of terrorism--Term , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--19 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-
Terrorism Act 1997--7 ,
Ss. 6(2)(b)(k), 7(c)(h), 19(12) & 25---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.9 & 10---Act of terrorism---Conviction in
absentia---Options for accused---Accused had two options in law in case of conviction recorded in absentia; firstly,
to approach the Trial Court within the stipulated period with a request to set aside his conviction recorded in
absentia, in terms of S.19(12) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by showing that he did not abscond deliberately from
the court during the trial and secondly to surrender before High Court by filing an appeal under S.25 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 with a prayer to set aside the conviction awarded in absentia; and to acquit him on merit or to
remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh trial by setting aside impugned judgment.
GHULAM RASOOL alias BHORO VS State
1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-H , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-
e-amd, causing hurt by rash or negligent act, act of terrorism, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---
Complainant had clearly stated that accused present in the court was not the same---Prosecution witness had
stated that S.H.O. had fired from his Kalashnikov at the deceased, who died at the spot---Accused did not make any
fire at the time of incident---Another prosecution witness had also not implicated accused in the commission of the
offence---Remaining evidence was formal in nature and nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of
accused---Eye-witnesses of the incident had not implicated accused in the commission of the offence---Trial Court
had failed to appreciate the evidence in accordance with the principle of law---Burden to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt rested on the prosecution, but it had failed to discharge the same---Prosecution having failed to
establish its case against accused, conviction and sentence awarded to them by the Trial Court, was set aside and
they were acquitted and released, in circumstances.
152 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

State VS WAQAR
PLD 2011 SC 997,
Ss. 6(2)(k) & 7(h)---Extortion of money (bhatta)---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was alleged to have
demanded bhatta from the complainant---Accused was arrested when he came to the house of complainant to
collect the bhatta amount---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under Ss. 6(2)(k) & 7(h) of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997---Validity---Complainant was not acquainted with the accused, therefore, it could not be said that accused
had come to the house of complainant for a social visit---Record showed that there was no enmity between the
complainant and accused---Complainant clearly deposed that accused was constantly calling him and arranged a
date and time to collect the bhatta amount from house of complainant---Accused went to the house of complainant
on the specific date and time to collect the bhatta amount, as there was no other purpose or reason available with
the accused to visit the house of complainant---Due to intervention of people of the locality accused did not succeed
in getting the bhatta amount and was apprehended from the spot---Appeal of accused was dismissed in
circumstances.
Gen. (R) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF VS State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 344/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997). Ss. 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b), (g), (i), (m)
& 7---Wrongful confinement for ten or more days, common intention, acts of terrorism---Pre-arrest bail, cancellation
of---Confinement of Judges of superior Courts---Allegation against the accused, who was a former President of
Pakistan and Chief of Army Staff, was that he suspended the Chief Justice of Pakistan and 60 other Judges of
superior Courts from their positions and placed them under house arrest for a period of five and half months due to
which they were unable to perform their judicial functions---Perusal of F.I.R. clearly suggested that police did not
insert the sections of relevant law which were made out from the contents of the F.I.R.---Confining Judges of
Superior Courts and stopping them from performance of their duties was an act of terrorism---Prima facie offence
under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was attracted to the present case---Police was bound under the law to insert
the sections of relevant law which contents of F.I.R. suggested---According to investigating officer accused did not
join the investigation, rather a telephonic message was conveyed (by him) that material would be provided to
court---Such act of accused was defiance of court order and misuse of concession of bail---Accused failed to point
out any mala fide on part of police or complainant---Offence alleged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1),
Cr.P.C---Accused was also a proclaimed offender and as such could not claim his normal rights---Accused was
specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and was also required for further investigation---Act of accused through which
Judges of Superior Court(s) were confined to their residencies shocked the entire nation more particularly
community of lawyers--- Such act of accused spread fear in the society, insecurity amongst judicial officers, alarm in
the lawyers community and terror throughout the country---Pre-arrest bail of accused was declined accordingly.
153 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Gen. (R) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF VS State
Ss. 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b), (g), (i), (m) & 7---Act of terrorism---Scope---Confining Judges of Superior Courts and stopping
them from performance of their duties---Such an act was an act of terrorism as defined by Ss.6(1)(b), 6(2)(b), (g), (i)
& (m).
EHSANULLAH VS State
1974 PCr.LJ 400, 1986 PCr.LJ 637, 1989 PCr.LJ 43, 1992 SCMR 2088, 1993 SCMR 2377, 1993 SCMR 550, 2000
PCr.LJ 47, 2000 SCMR 1758, 2001 SCMR 424, 2007 SCMR 162, 2009 PCr.LJ 940, PLD 1964 Kar. 356, PLD 1964
SC 26, PLD 1988 Kar. 521, PLD 2003 SC 350,
1965--13 ,
Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed
weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which was a special law, would override the
provisions of general law---Offence of murder had been provided in the schedule of said special law, which was
punishable with death---Fire shots received by the deceased and injured, were from a high velocity fire-arm and not
from a low velocity gun, such as a Repeater---Statements of the prosecution witnesses, the recoveries, the motive
and other facts of the murder of deceased and the injuries, sustained by other four persons, had proved case
against accused to the hilt---Criminal case under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was also proved against
accused, his conviction and sentence was upheld and murder reference made by the Trial Court to his extent was
answered in affirmative---Benefit of doubt was extended to co-accused and their sentence was set aside and they
would be released.
NAZEER AHMED VS NOORUDDIN
S. 6---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, determination of---Principles---Neither motive nor intention for commission
of the offence was relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court and it was the act
which was designed to create sense of insecurity and/or to destabilize the public at large, which attracted the
provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
NAZEER AHMED VS NOORUDDIN
154 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

2007 SCMR 142, PLD 2009 SC 11,
S.6---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, determination of---Accused

(petitioners) had challenged the order passed by High Court, by which it directed the Investigating Officer to submit
challan of accused before the Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---High Court had examined the material at length and
had rightly concluded that the act of the accused created sense of insecurity amongst the villagers and did
destabilize the public at large and, therefore, attracted the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Neither
motive nor intention for commission of the offence was relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction of the Anti-
Terrorism Court and it was the act which was designed to create sense of insecurity and/or to destabilize the public
at large, which attracted the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Accused's act created sense of insecurity
amongst the co-villagers---Order of High Court being well reasoned, Supreme Court dismissed accused's' petition
and refused leave to appeal.
AHMED JAN VS NASRULLAH
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--169 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-
e-amd--Term ,
S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 169---Constitution of

Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Qatl-e-amd---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention of
accused that case registered against him did not fulfil criteria laid down under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for
the purpose of trial by Special Judge, as no lethal firearms were used by accused and other persons and it was a
usual free fight between two factions, which had taken place at the spur of moment without any previous criminal
intimidation; furthermore pistol was used by one accused who had been discharged by prosecution under S.169,
Cr.P.C.
AHMED JAN VS NASRULLAH
2001 SCMR 1225, PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2009 SC 11,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--173 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-
e-amd--Term ,
S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.173---Qatl-e-amd---

'Terrorism'---Assumption of jurisdiction---Scope---Transfer of proceedings---Four accused one armed with pistol, one
with knife and remaining with sticks attacked complainant party in consequence of which one person died and one
received injuries and the case was transferred to Special Court of Anti-Terrorism for trial---Validity---No motive was
alleged in F.I.R. against accused and police after due investigation submitted Challan/report under S.173, Cr.P.C.
before Court of Sessions who entrusted to Additional Sessions judge who transmitted it to Special Court established
under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Supreme Court directed to transmit the record of case to Trial Court and set aside
the judgment passed by High Court---Appeal was allowed.
155 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MUHAMMAD RASOOL VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--Third Sche ,
Ss. 12(1), 6, Third Sched., Cl.(iii)---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Attempt to commit or aid, or abetment of or
any conspiracy to commit any of the offences stated in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to be a Scheduled offence,
exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court under S.12(1) 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 ,
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 ,
156 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

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.
Haji ALLAH NAZAR VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-II, QUETTA
Ss. 6, 7 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 427/109, 447, 147, 148 & 149---Mischief causing damage to the
amount of five lac rupees, criminal trespass---Transfer of case to ordinary court---Offences against accused were of
simple nature like trespass or damage to a property of the opponent, which were punishable not more than two
years---Record had shown that a dispute of personal nature existed between the parties for the determination of
ownership of leased area---For cases of terrorism, falling under Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, there must
be not only Scheduled Offence under S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but also mens rea for creating intentional
sense of terror or fear or insecurity in the society---Cases having background of personal enmity and taking private
revenge, did not fall within the ambit of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Special Judge, was not justified to
reject application of accused for sending matter to the Court of Sessions Judge---Order of Special Judge was illegal
as matter in question was within the domain of the regular courts---Cases were ordered to be withdrawn from the
court of Special Judge and transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate concerned for disposal in accordance with
law, in circumstances.
MICHAEL NAZIR VS State
157 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302(b) & 324---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution version, seemed to be absolutely true for genuine and valid
reasons---Prosecution evidence was consistent, straightforward confidence-inspiring, corroborative to each other
and flawless---No ambiguity or doubt was noticed in the prosecution case qua the commission of offence by
accused---Medical evidence, recovery of firearm from the possession of accused, positive report of Ballistic Expert,
corroborated the ocular account---Accused claimed that he had been booked in the case not because he had
committed any offence, but because he had embraced Islam---Stand taken by the defence was not acceptable for
the reasons that prosecution evidence had proved the fact that accused had fired upon deceased and injured
prosecution witnesses; that as a consequence of the firing made by accused, two persons sustained bullet injuries
and died instantaneously, whereas two prosecution witnesses sustained bullet injuries; that motive as set up by the
defence, was neither plausible nor probable; that despite weakness of motive, defence had failed to prove the
motive so agitated---Stance of defence, in view of overwhelming evidence, baseless, preposterous and nothing
more than a cobweb---Accused, in the light of material on record had committed the preplanned, wilful, intentional
and cold-blooded murder of two innocent, harmless and helpless persons, beside causing the firearm injuries to two
prosecution witnesses---Appeal filed by accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
MICHAEL NAZIR VS State
1998 SCMR 862, 1999 SCMR 132, 2010 PCr.LJ 1787, PLD 1976 SC 452, PLD 2006 SC 354,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Intention--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
Ss. 302(b) & 324---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and
terrorism---Sentence, enhancement of---Intention---Scope---Trial Court had proposed lesser punishment on the
ground of lack of mens rea---Criminal intention must exist to constitutie a crime---"Intention" did not imply or assume
the existence of some previous design or forethought but could be proved by or inferred from the act of accused and
circumstances of the case---Continuous firing by accused who was an educated person and fully aware of the
consequences of his act, was reflective of his intention---Unprovoked act of firing by accused on the vital part of
deceased persons, led to irresistible conclusion that accused intended to cause the death of the victims---Evidence
produced by the prosecution was straightforward, confidence-inspiring, cogent, consistent, unimpeachable,
unshaken and had brought home the charge against accused to the hilt---Evidence did not suffer from any
infirmity---In such state of affairs it was beyond imagination to conclude that no 'mens rea' or intention was on the
part of accused---Conclusion of the Trial Court regarding non-availability of "mens rea" or lack of intention to commit
the murder of deceased persons having no basis and foundation, was rejected in circumstances---No reasons
existed which could justify a sympathetic, a lenient or concessional treatment for accused---In absence of any
mitigating and extenuating circumstances justifying the imposition of lesser punishment, sentence of life
imprisonment awarded to accused was converted to that of death sentence.
SHER AHMED VS KHUDA-E-RAHIM
158 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special
Court) Act 1975--4 , Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act 1975--5 ,
Ss. 4 & 5---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 3, 6, 13 [as amended by
Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of 2011)] & 39(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 &
199---Constitutional petition---Double murder on allegation of siyahkari---Conviction and sentence awarded to
accused on 27-10-1999 by Special Court after his trial in absentia---Order of Sessions Judge suspending such
conviction/ sentence and directing fresh trial of accused on his application made in November, 2010 under S. 5-A(7)
of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975---Validity---Special Court was not in existence on the
date of such application, rather its successor forum i.e. Anti-Terrorism Court established under Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997, was in existence---Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 was repealed vide S. 39(1) of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but acts done under Act of 1975 were given due protection by S. 39(2) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Accused had committed double murder on bald allegation of siyahkari in a brutal manner by
means of firing with kalashinkov---Such act of accused being a Scheduled offence fell within ambit of S. 6(ii)(g) of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and his case was exclusively triable by Special Court constituted under S. 3 thereof---
Neither law nor religion permitted so-called honour killing, which amounted to murder---Such iniquitous and vile act
of accused was violative of Art. 9 of the Constitution---Present case was instituted under repealed Act of 1975,
whereunder accused could be punished by Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court, if prosecution succeeded to establish his
guilt---High Court set aside impugned order and directed Sessions Judge to transmit main case along with such
application to concerned Anti-Terrorism Court for its decision in accordance with law.
ZAKIR HUSSAIN alias KAMI VS THE STATE through A.-G. KPK
2007 PCr.LJ 1011, PLD 2004 Lah. 779, PLD 2007 SC 571, PLD 2009 SC 11,
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-e-amd--
Term ,
159 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 148/149---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Qatl-e-amd---
Constitutional petition---"Terrorism"---Scope---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to court of ordinary
jurisdiction---Accused facing trial before the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, had sought transfer of case to court of
ordinary jurisdiction on the ground that same did not fall under provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Application of accused was turned down by Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---Very object and purpose
behind the promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was to provide speedy and expeditious mechanism for trial of
heinous offences to prevent terrorism and sectarian violence---To attract the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
one had to find nexus of series of acts which accused had allegedly committed---To determine whether act of
accused as narrated in the F.I.R. constituted offence of terrorism, was to be examined in the light of the definition of
the word, "terrorism" provided in the Act. another determing aspect was whether act had created a sense of fear and
insecurity in the public or in any section of public or community---If such ingredients were missing, then the act
committed could not be held to be an act of "terrorism" and would be out of the domain of Anti-Terrorism Court---In
the present case, matter of missing of the son of complainant was reported by the brother of the complainant---
Matter was inquired and case was registered under S.364-A/34, P.P.C. against accused for abduction of minor son
of the complainant---On recovery of the dead body, section of law was altered and S.302, P.P.C. was added---
Incident appeared to be a brutal murder of a minor boy---Mere brutal murder in absence of requirements of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, would not constitute an offence under S.7 of said Act---Element of sense of fear or insecurity in
public or a section of public, was also missing---Any case of murder with a story of brutality alone would not make a
case triable by Anti-Terrorism Court, for which courts of ordinary jurisdiction were there to deal with---Facts narrated
in the F.I.R. having not attracted the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction
to try accused thereunder--- Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
ARSHAD MASIH VS State
Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--302 ,
S. 497(2) & (4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 148 &149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---
Qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was alleged to have
been holding a 'danda' at the time of occurrence and allegedly rounded the complainant party and assisted the co-
accused in perpetrating the attack---Accused was named in F.I.R. but his mere presence at the spot with no overt
act played by him was a factor requiring further probe as to his involvement---Commencement of trial by itself was
not a bar to the grant of bail provided facts and circumstances permit as S. 497(4), Cr.P.C was very much clear in
stating that bail can be granted even before the pronouncement of the judgment---Accused was enlarged on bail, in
circumstances.
ASRAR AHMED KHAN VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
160 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--186 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--283 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--290 , Pakistan Penal Code
Ss. 23, 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.283/290/291/324/353/435/506/ 186/148/149---Constitution of

Pakistan, Art.199---Obstruction in public way, public nuisance, nuisance after injunction to discontinue, attempt to
commit Qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force, mischief by fire or explosive substance, criminal intimidation,
obstruction public servant in discharge of public functions, rioting with deadly weapon and unlawful assembly---
Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to regular court---Anti-Terrorism Court vide impugned order had refused to
transfer the case to regular court---Validity---Accused petitioner and other accused persons while armed with fire-
arms had allegedly not only blocked a chowk, but had also made firing and pelted stones on police employees---
Astonishingly, none of the police officials or any other member of the District Administration, present at the place of
occurrence, had received a single injury---Investigating Officer could not collect any crime empty from the spot---Ten
or eleven unknown persons mentioned by complainant as accused had not been brought as accused in the case till
date---Sectarian hatred falling within the ambit of S.8(d)(i) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not involved in the case
of accused and only terrorist activity had been alleged against the persons mentioned in the crime report---Facts of
the case in stricto sensu did not attract the provisions of any section of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, including S.6
thereof---Anti-Terrorism Court, therefore, was not justified in rejecting the application of accused moved under S.23
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, especially when while disposing of the bail petition of accused it had been observed that
according to the Investigating Officer the case seemed to be doubtful---Impugned order was, consequently, set
aside with the direction to Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer the case to ordinary court for its trial afresh---
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
SHEHZAD ASIF RAZA VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Essentials--Term ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Act of terrorism, determination of---Essentials---In order to determine as to whether the offence would
fall within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it is essential to look into the allegations levelled in the
F.I.R., the record of the case and the surrounding circumstances---Court was also to examine that the ingredients of
the alleged offence had nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 and 8 of the said Act---
Motivation, object, design and purpose behind the act are also to be seen for determining its nature of terrorism,
besides having been created by it a sense of insecurity in the public.
HAZOOR BUX VS State
PLD 2005 SC 530,
161 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6 & 23---Transfer of case sought from Anti-Terrorism court to ordinary court---Accused and co-accused
(applicants) were alleged to have trespassed into the complainant's house in order to steal and on facing resistance
they killed the complainant's father and injured his brother---Application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for
transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary court was dismissed by the Trial Court with the observation
that accused persons committed brutal murder which created panic and insecurity in the minds of the people of the
vicinity---Validity---Allegation in the F.I.R. was that three persons trespassed into the house of the complainant party
in the middle of the night and their ostensible intention was to steal---Accused and co-accused faced resistance
which led to firing---No allegation of firing in the air or at the villagers, so as to terrorize them or the community, was
put forward---No previous acquaintance existed between the accused persons and the complainant---Present case
was simple case of intended theft where one thing led to another and two persons got murdered---No evidence was
brought forward to satisfy the requirements of S.6(b) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 6(c) of the Act was not
attracted in the present case---Revision application was allowed, impugned order of Trial Court was set-aside and
application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was allowed with directions to the Trial court to transfer the case
to the Court of Sessions Judge, who might either himself proceed with the case or might transfer it to any Additional
Session Judge competent to try the offence.
JEHANGIR VS State
S.497(2)---Penal Code MAT of 1860), Ss. 302/ 324/ 353/ 147/ 148/ 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 &
7--- Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his
duty, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, acts of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further
inquiry---Accused and. co-accused persons were alleged to have fired at a police party which resulted in the death
of a police official---Accused was implicated in the case on the basis of identification parade and recovery of
weapon---Name of accused did not transpire in the F.I.R.-Identification parade was delayed by about 6 days, which
had not been accounted for by the prosecution---During identification parade accused raised the objection that
witnesses had seen him many times at the police station during his remand---Such objection of accused was
noticed by the Magistrate, therefore, possibility of accused having been shown to the prosecution witnesses before
conducting of identification parade could not be ruled out---Weapon was allegedly recovered from accused after
about 3 months of the incident and after 7 days of his arrest on his pointation---Recovery of weapon from accused
was also doubtful because the F.I.R. showed that all accused persons were armed with Kalashnikovs but weapon
allegedly recovered from accused was a pistol- -Challan had been submitted against accused and he was no more
required for further investigation---Case against accused required further inquiry and he was allowed bail
accordingly.
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS State
162 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A ,
Penal Code 1860--440 ,
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/ 341/ 353/ 337-A(i)/ 435/ 440/ 147/ 148/149/109---Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, wrongful restraint, assault or criminal force to deter
public servant from discharge of his duty, shajjah-i-khafifah, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to
cause damage, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt, rioting, rioting armed with
deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, acts of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against accused
persons of forming a mob and resorting to vandalism while protesting for the release of some criminals---
Contentions of accused persons were that other accused persons nominated in a different F.I.R., which emanated
from the present F.I.R., had been released on bail; that neither any specific role was assigned to them nor any
weapons had been recovered from them, and that prosecution had no medical evidence to connect the accused
persons with the crime---Validity---Allegations against accused persons were general in nature and no recovery of
weapons had been made from them---No medical report had come on record---Prosecution did not contest the
grounds raised by the accused in the present bail application---Case under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. had been made
out and accused persons were enlarged on bail.
MUHAMMAD AYOOB VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Explosive Substances
Act 1908--4 , Explosive Substances Act 1908--5 ,
Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7(b)---Attempt to cause explosion, making or possessing
explosive, and act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was already in custody since 3rd October, 2002
and alleged arms and ammunition were said to have been produced by him after a delay of 12 days which also
made the recovery highly doubtful---Accused had juxtaposed his case in the Trial Court and was able to prove the
mala fides of the Police that just to teach lesson to the family, both the brothers were booked in the false case, and
showed the gravity of the crime foisted upon them; the hand grenade, fuses of rocket launcher and KK with 20 live
bullets by arresting and showing them terrorists---Father of accused succeeded in getting the possession of his plot
from Police forgetting that it was a Police Station and ordinary citizens in such circumstances had to face the
consequences---Arms and ammunition, were not sealed at the spot and Police produced the property in the Trial
Court in unsealed condition---Investigating Officer had also admitted in cross-examination that the K.K. was without
number, in such circumstances, besides the other contradictions that the complainant had mentioned in the F.I.R.
and the memo of seizure that the arms were secured from the open plot in front of the house of accused, but
mashirs deposed otherwise, which spoiled the case of the prosecution---Where the prosecution itself had failed to
prove its case, impugned judgment resulting in 7/8 years' R.I. for accused, was sheer mockery and amounting to
slaughtering the innocent citizens---Prosecution having failed to prove its case, against accused, impugned
judgment was set aside, accused was acquitted and released, in circumstances.
BAKSHOO VS State
163 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

PLD 1995 SC 1,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Essential ingredients--Term ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---"Terrorism"---Essential ingredients---In order to determine as to whether an offence would fall within
the ambit under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in
the F.I.R., record of the case and surrounding circumstances; it was also necessary to examine whether the
ingredients of alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 & 8, Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or
purpose behind said act, and whether the said act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public, or any
section of public or community or in any sect was to be seen---Striking of terror was sine qua non for the application
of the provisions as contained in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which could not be determined without examining
the nature, gravity and heinousness of the alleged offence.
MOAZZAM alias MOAZZAN VS State
Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Kidnapping or
abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., common intention, acts of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Accused
and co-accused persons allegedly abducted the complainant's son (abductee) for ransom---Abductee was
voluntarily released and recorded his statements under Ss.161 & 164, Cr.P.0 on basis of which accused was
arrested---Name of accused did not transpire in the F.LR.---Abductee did not disclose the name of accused in his
statements under Ss. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C---No identification parade was conducted---No incriminating article was
recovered from possession of accused- No ransom had been paid to anyone---Only piece of evidence against
accused was statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 161, Cr. P. C whereby they implicated the accused---
Said statements under S. 161, Cr. P. C could be considered at time of trial as they had no evidentiary value at bail
stage---Challan against accused had been submitted and he was no more required for further investigation---
Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.
BASHIR MASIH VS State
164 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2) & 7---Theft, acts of
terrorism---Bail, refusal of---Theft of gas---Illegal connection with main supply pipeline---Accused had allegedly
made illegal connection with the main gas pipeline and was supplying gas to households in the area in return of a
fixed monthly bill---Bail application of accused had been dismissed twice by Trial Court---On application of the
accused's mother, re-inquiry of the case was conducted, after which three sections of P.P.C were deleted from F.I.R.
and only S.379, P.P.C remained---Accused applied for bail again, after said deletion of sections but his bail
application was refused---Validity---Damaging supply line of a national resource/asset in connivance with officials of
the Government department, thereby causing huge loss, was not an ordinary offence, rather it was serious in nature
and grievous in consequence---Case against accused was a delicate and sensitive matter and came within the
definition of a terrorist act, attracting the provisions of S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997---Bail petition of accused was
dismissed.
BASHIR MASIH VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--379 , Theft--TERM ,
Ss. 6(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379---Theft---Illegal connection with main supply pipeline---Word "disrupt"
occurring in S.6(2)(i), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is synonymous to word 'disorder', 'distract', interfere with' 'upset',
'abstract', 'distort', 'damage', 'sunder' etc.
WATAN PARTY VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--386 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--387 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--388 ,
Ss. 386, 387 & 388---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(1)(k)---Offences of extortion of money, which can also
be considered as bhatta, is covered by Ss.386, 387 & 388 of P.P.C. and falls within definition of "terrorism" given in
S.6(1)(k), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Such crime can be controlled by applying said laws strictly.
HABIBULLAH VS State
1975 SCMR 69, PLD 1967 SC 545, PLD 1984 SC 218,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--10 , Pakistan Penal Code
165 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 10(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 354-A & 452---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(b)---Zina-bil-Jabar,
assault or use of criminal force to woman and stripping her of her clothes and house trespass---Reappraisal of
evidence---Solitary statement of prosecutrix---Marks of violence, absence of---Accused was convicted and
sentenced by Trial Court for imprisonment for 20 years and the same was maintained by High Court---Contention of
accused was that there were no marks of violence found on the body of prosecutrix, therefore, benefit of doubt
should be extended to him---Validity---Veracity of prosecutrix's statement was the inherent merit of her statement
because corroborative evidence alone could not be made a base to award conviction---Contention of accused was
in oblivion of thy' fact that rape was proved on the basis of cogent and concrete evidence including medical
evidence---Marks of violence were not essential to establish factum of Zina-bil-Jabar---Supreme Court after keeping
defence version in juxtaposition, declined to take into consideration the same as it was baseless---Merely on the
basis of a petty matter nobody would like to stigmatize her innocent daughter for her entire life which would have a
substantial bearing on her future---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the conviction and sentence awarded to
accused by the Courts below---Appeal was dismissed.
Syed ARSHAD ALI SHAH BUKHARI VS State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/392/395---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Attempt to
commit Qatl-e-amd, robbery and dacoity---Bail, grant of---Case of further inquiry---"Robbery" and "Dacoity"---
Distinguished---Innocence of co-accused---Stolen property, non-recovery of---Four out of eight accused persons
nominated in F.I.R. were declared by investigating agency to be innocent, reducing number of culprits to less than
five, thus instead of S. 395, P.P. C., only S. 392, P.P. C. could be attracted---Even provision of S. 392, P. P. C. did not
find support from the circumstances as it had been alleged in F.I.R. that some mobile phone sets were snatched
away by culprits from two members of police party but during investigation no such mobile telephone sets had been
recovered---No independent proof of any violence against any member of police force endangering life or property
of any member of police force was available---Prima facie it was doubtful at bail stage as to whether provisions of
S.6 read with S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were attracted or not---Bail was allowed.

AZIZULLAH VS State
2002 SCMR 1225, 2009 SCMR 527, PLD 2009 SC 11,
1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Terrorism--TERM ,
166 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6, 7 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b)/34 & 324---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---
Terrorism---Transfer of case front court of ordinary jurisdiction to court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court---
Application for---Case was sought to be transferred from the files of Sessions Judge to court of Special Judge, Anti-
Terrorism Court, on the grounds that accused were absconding; that the offence had been committed on main road;
that incident had created severe fear and panic in the area and that the offence was an act of terrorism and fell
within the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity---Offence alleged to have been committed by accused
persons, was with the motive to kill the victims by firing with Kalashnikov---Act was committed on a highway on
basis of past enmity existed between both the parties as per contents of F.I.R. ---Intended action though had caused
loss of life and caused hurt, but only that fact would not constitute an offence to bring same within the purview of
terrorism and it was to be established, that alleged act created any sense of insecurity in general; or even to a
particular section of society; or threat or sense of fear had been created due to the same---In the present case,
though one person had lost his life and other sustained serious injuries, but ingredient required for forming an
offence under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was intimidation or overawe, either the government or section
of public, was missing---Application for transfer of case was dismissed, in circumstances.
JAHANGIR VS State
1860--376 ,
S. 376---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Rape and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence,

reduction in---Examination-in-chief of both eye-witnesses had made it clear that their statements on the vital
dimensions of prosecution case i.e. time and place of occurrence, nomination of accused, particular attribution of
commission of rape with minor victim, were in line and corroborative to each other---Both the witnesses had
furnished probable and plausible reasons of their presence at the time and place of occurrence---Testimony of both
the witnesses bore intrinsic value and inherent worth of truthfulness and were safely reliable---Despite searching
cross-examination upon both the witnesses, nothing material elicited in favour of the offence---Medical evidence
produced by the prosecution, had furnished sufficient corroboration to the ocular account---Accumulating appraisal
of the confidence inspiring ocular account having corroboration of the medical evidence, had led to conclusion that
prosecution had sufficiently established the charge of commission of rape with minor victim against accused---
Subsequent conduct of accused in fleeing away from the place of occurrence along with his shalwar having sight of
the witnesses, also indicated his guilt---Charge under S.7(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, both the witnesses had not
uttered even a single word in their examination-in-chief with regard to striking off any panic, terror, fear or insecurity
in the public or locality in result of the alleged occurrence---Single statement of one witness that after the incident of
molestation there was panic all around the area, was neither reliable nor confidence inspiring---Said solitary
statement of the witness lacking inherent worth without any further corroboration was totally insufficient to prove the
charge that alleged occurrence resulted into striking terror, fear or sense of insecurity among the public in the
relevant vicinity attracting S.7(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Provisions of Ss.6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
being not attracted at all in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to that extent appeal of accused was accepted
and accused was acquitted in the charge under S.7(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Arraignment of accused in the
charge under S.376, P.P.C. had been established to the hilt---Defence side had failed to create any dent or doubt in
the prosecution evidence with any speck of material---No reason existed to take exception to the conviction of
accused under S.376, P.P.C. as judged by the Trial Court---Accused was unmarried young person aged about 24
years, having no criminal history of involvement in any case of like nature---Since accused was not a habitual
offender, chances of his rehabilitation, could not be ruled out---Keeping in view the tender age of accused with
genuine hope that he could come up as a useful member of the society, taking lenient view, maintaining his
conviction under S.376, P.P.C. his sentences were modified and reduced to 20 years R.I., accordingly.
167 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

JAHANGIR VS State
Ss. 6 & 7---'Terrorism'---Ordinary criminal assault and physical violence to a victim would not fall within the purview
of 'terrorism' as defined in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---To take cognizance under the Act, it would remain
incumbent upon the court to examine impact of alleged violence and also to see as to whether alleged criminal act
was designed to create a sense of terror, fear and insecurity in the mind of general public creating panic in the
society---Existence of said parameters, was vital to bring the offender within the purview of the offences under Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997.
TARIQ HAKIM VS State
S.6--- 'Terrorism'--- Words "designed to"---Connotation---Words "designed to" used in S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997, means the object, motive or purpose behind the act and not the consequential effect created by such act.
2007 YLR 155, 2009 PCr.LJ 346, 2010 PCr.LJ 23, 2010 PCr.LJ 98, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD
2005 SC 530,
168 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Qatl-e-amd,
attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and act of terrorism---Constitutional petition---Anti-Terrorism Court had dismissed the
application of the accused petitioner moved under S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of the case to the
court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Complainant had stated in the F.I.R. that the assailants after identifying his
brother had made firing on his vehicle, which showed their clear intention to do away with only his brother and not
the others who could not be saved due to their accompanying with the target of assailants in the same vehicle-
Although the F.I.R. did not reflect the names of the accused persons, yet the incident was the result of enmity and
personal vendetta, as was apparent from the supplementary statement made by the complainant before the police,
wherein he had categorically narrated all the facts clearly suggesting that the incident had taken place due to
previous enmity---Occurrence in the case had neither reflected any act of terrorism, nor any sectarian matter,
instead the murders had been committed owing to previous enmity between the parties---Occurrence, therefore,
could not in any manner be declared falling within the ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, I997---Anti-Terrorism
Court had committed an illegality while passing the impugned order assuming the jurisdiction to try the offences---
Impugned order was consequently set-aside and the case was transferred to the court of ordinary jurisdiction for
trial in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Determination as to whether an offence falls within the ambit of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Guide
lines---Motive and object both make a path for guideance in order to determine whether the offence falls within the
domain of Anti-Terrorism Act or not---Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 reflects two words, namely, "designed
to" and "action" and from the interpretation of both these words one can draw an inference that whether the offence
falls within the ambit of terrorism or not---Intention of the Legislature is very much clear from the words "designed to"
and "action" and both the words have great impact on each other in order to constitute an action as act of
terrorism---From the meaning of simple word "action" it is very different to deduct that the action of a person was an
act of terrorism without the word "designed to" which means object behind the action---If the brutality of the act of a
person is declared terrorism, then every murder case will fall within the definition of terrorism, as seen from any
angle the murder is always committed in a brutal manner---Definition of terrorism, thus, is incomplete without the
words, "designed to" which means the object, motive or purpose behind the act and not the consequential effect
created by such act.
AMEER HUSSAIN VS State
PLD 2004 Lah. 199,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 ,
169 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6 & 7(h)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 149---Act of terrorism---Scope---To bring an offence within the ambit of
terrorism, it was necessary that threat was used to design to coerce and intimidate or overawe the government,
public, community or sect; or if the act was made to create a sense of fear or insecurity in society or the purpose
was to advance a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause; and the action involved firing or serious risk to safety of
Public; or to frighten the general public by burning vehicles etc., or extortion of money (Bhatha); or the threat was
designed to serious interfere with or seriously disrupt communication system; or public utility service; or it involved
serious coercion or intimidation of a public servant in order to force him to discharge or to refrain from discharging
his lawful duty; or involved serious violence against a member of the Police force or public servant---Prosecution
story in the present case was that accused persons were fighting with each other and prosecution had not claimed
that accused were disrupting any communication system or were violent against the Police force; or any public
servant present at the place of occurrence; or that panic had been created at the spot resulting into sense of
insecurity among the public---Accused were not armed with any kind of weapon at the time of occurrence-Accused
in circumstances, could not be presumed to be in a position to use threat in order to create panic or sense of fear or
insecurity in the society at large, it could not be termed as terrorism---Even an action which resulted into some
terror, could not be equated with terrorism, while it was not intended so, because an action would amount to
terrorism, if it was projected with the mens rea of creating panic or insecurity---Parties had come to persue their
matters, pending before the High Court; as it appeared that at the spur of moment something happened culminating
fight between them, which was not premeditated, nor its object was designed to create fear and insecurity in the
society at large; or any community for that matter---Accused had not committed the offence falling within the ambit
of S.7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in circumstances.
SHERAL VS SAJAN alias SAJOO
2003 SCMR 1323, 2007 SCMR 142, 2010 PCr.LJ 98, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2003 SC 396,
PLD 2005 SC 530, PLD 2007 SC 472, PLD 2008 SC 503, PLD 2009 SC 11,
Penal Code 1860--337-H , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--452 ,
S.526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/337-H(2)/452/147/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),

Ss.6, 7, 12 & 23---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, causing hurt by rash and negligent act and
trespassing---Application for transfer of case from the Sessions Court to Anti-Terrorism Court---Case was sought to
be transferred by the appellant/complainant on the ground that offence for which F.I.R. had been filed, was a
heinous offence and fell under the definition of scheduled offence, which could only be tried-under S.12 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Crime allegedly committed by the respondents/accused, being
heinous, was enough to. create a sense of insecurity and panic in the minds of all sections of general public and
terrorize the minds of all the persons who learnt about the same---Offence- in the cases fell within the ambit of Ss.6
& 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the right forum to adjudicate the offence, was the Anti-Terrorism Court and
not the Sessions Court---Transfer application was allowed and Sessions Judge was directed to immediately transfer
the case to Anti-Terrorism Court which was directed to conduct the proceedings of the case expeditiously.
170 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

GHULAM MURTAZA JAMALI VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Further Inquiry--TERM , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--384 ,
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.384, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(1)(k)-Extortion
and terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Names of Mashirs did not appear in the very F.I.R. in which the
complainant was shown to have proceeded from Police Station to the place of alleged incident as per the directions
of the Police---No Mashirnama was prepared at the spot in respect of the recovery of the cash allegedly received by
accused and recovered from his possession---Mashirnama in question had shown that accused was first taken from
the spot towards the Police Station where such Mashirnama was prepared---Complainant also admitted on a query
that both Mashirs were his subordinates---Alleged demand of "Bhatta" made by accused from the complainant on
Mobile Phone, also needed further inquiry---Accused being entitled to the concession of bail, was admitted to bail, in
circumstances.
MUHAMMAD SHAHID HANIF VS State
1971 SCMR 569, 1983 PCr.LJ 2519, 1984 PCr.LJ 407, 1991 SCMR 942, 1992 PCr.LJ 756, 1995 SCMR 127, 1995
SCMR 896, 2003 SCMR 1419, 2005 PCr.LJ 1135, PLD 1972 SC 363, PLD 1978 Quetta 1, PLD 1987 Quetta 96,
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
S. 302(a)/34---Anti-Terrorism Act(XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(1)(c), 6(2)(a) & 7(a)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of
1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possession of arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---
Confessional statements of accused persons were recorded after a delay of more than 10 days and prosecution had
failed to explain said inordinate delay in recording the same---Confessional statements were not corroborated by
any independent evidence---Confessional statements of accused were recorded after 8 days of the Identification
Parade, which appeared to be not voluntary and true and also generated doubt in the prosecution case---Witnesses
had not assigned any role to any of accused at the time of identification parade, which had created doubt in the
prosecution case---Recoveries as alleged were effected in presence of two persons, but the prosecution had failed
to examine the said two persons---Non-examination of the private witnesses also had created serious doubt in the
prosecution case---Recoveries, in circumstances were doubtful---Two prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses
and no person from the locality was examined by the prosecution, while they were available---Complainant had not
given the names of two prosecution witnesses in his statement under S.154, Cr. P. C. ---Evidence of said witnesses
could not be taken into consideration, in circumstances---Evidence on record did not satisfy accepted requirements
of safe administration of criminal justice---Accused, in circumstances, were entitled to benefit of doubt--Impugned
judgment of court below was set aside, accused were acquitted of the charge and were released, in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI alias PAPAN VS State
2010 SCMR 1706, 2011 SCMR 629, 2011 SCMR 664, PLD 1973 SC 418,
171 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

1860--365-A ,
S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc. and
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of alleged abductee, itself appeared to be doubtful in view of glaring
contradictions and discrepancies available in the evidence of two prosecution witnesses---Prosecution, in
circumstances, had not proved the case against accused---Main charge was against father of alleged abductee who
was a natural guardian, but he was acquitted by the Trial Court, on whose alleged pointation alleged abductee was
recovered---Trial Court had found that no direct evidence was available on record to connect the father and his co-
accused with the commission of offence---Accused was convicted due to circumstantial evidence on the sole ground
that alleged abductee was recovered from his otaq, which was totally doubtful in view of evidence of two
prosecution witnesses---Mother of alleged abductee never appeared in the court despite bailable warrants, for
recording evidence who received telephonic calls from the kidnappers for the demand of ransom---Father could not
be held liable for kidnapping his own son being a natural guardian---Prosecution having failed to prove its case
against accused beyond reasonable doubt; impugned judgment was set aside and accused was acquitted of the
charge and was released, in circumstances.
NOORUDDIN VS NAZEER AHMED
PLD 2005 SC 530,
Ss. 6 & 7---"Terrorism"---Meaning and applicability---Word 'Terrorism', inter cilia would mean the use or threat of
action, where use or threat was 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 society; and would create a serious
risk to safety of the public or a section of public; or was designed to frighten the general public and thereby prevent
them from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business; and disrupt civil life---Section 6 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 has its own independent applicability and interpretation and all acts of `terrorism' in relation
thereto were to be seen on the touchstone of S.6 which has provided and defined in detail the meaning of
'terrorism'---Legislature has neither provided any immunity nor relaxation that in case of previous enmity the case
would not be tried by the Anti-Terrorism Court, but again the criteria to judge was the gravity of offence; and its
modus operandi, whether it created a sense of fear or insecurity in the society; and created a serious risk to safety
of the public or a section of the public; or was designed to frighten the general public; and thereby prevent them
from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business; and disrupt civil life---Striking off terror was
sine qua non for the application of provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which could not be determined
without examining the nature, gravity and heinousness. of the alleged offence, contents of F.I.R., its cumulative
effect on the society or a group of persons--- "Terrorism " would mean the use or threat of "action" where the action
would fall within the meaning of subsection (2) of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; and would create a serious risk to
the safety of the public; or a section of the public; or was designed to frighten the general public---Such action would
amount to 'terrorism' as enumerated in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
NOORUDDIN VS NAZEER AHMED
172 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

2003 SCMR 1323, 2007 SCMR 142, 2009 SCMR 527, PLD 2009 SC 11,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan
1860--302 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 147, 148 & 149---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possessing unlicenced arms---
Quashing of order, application for---Police, after conducting investigation submitted challan in Anti-Terrorism Court
for trial, but Judge vide impugned order returned the police papers to Investigating Officer for submitting challan
before the court having jurisdiction as according to opinion of Judge, Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not
attract in the case---Validity---While deciding, whether challan was to be entertained or not, Trial Court had failed to
consider the true perspective of S.6 of Ant-Terrorism Act, 1997 and in a slipshod manner returned the challan on the
effortless notion that it was a case of previous enmity, which was not the sole criterion to decide---Had the court
while passing the impugned order considered the gravity and seriousness of the violent act and atrocity, it might
have expressed the different view---In order to find out the severity of charge, whether S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 would apply or not, it was expedient to look into the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. by the complainant---
Depiction of incident had clearly deduced and figured out that three persons had been murdered brutally in the
daylight at the shop situated in the market---Shop was bolted from inside, even then accused persons had climbed
on the roof of the shop and broken the roof and viciously murdered three persons---All accused persons were
alleged to have made heavy aerial firing to create harassment and terrorism---Three persons had been brutally
murdered in the daylight in the shop situated in the market, had an overall impact of creating a sense of fear or
insecurity in the society; and risk to safety of the public and frightened the general public, thereby preventing them
from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business and disrupted civil life---Applicant had
attached the photos of broken roof of the shop and the bodies of victims lying at the hospital which portrayed
dreadful and terrible state of affairs; and the niceties of incident committed in a manner which unquestionably and
undoubtedly amounted to terrorism as enumerated in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Impugned order was set
aside with the direction to Investigating Officer' to submit the challan in the Anti-Terrorism Court concerned.
MUHAMMAD BILAL alias SULLEMAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary Ministry of Law,
Justice and Human Rights Division
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--507 , Telegraph Act
1885--25-D ,
173 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 6(2)(d), 6(2)(ee), 7(b)(ff), 17, 23 & 25---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.507---Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S.25-
D---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Trial by Anti-Terrorism Court---Scope---Act of
terrorism likely to cause death or endanger a person's life, act of terrorism that involves use of explosives by any
devise including bomb blast, criminal intimidation by anonymous communication---Accused contended that Anti-
Terrorism Court was not competent to convict him of non-scheduled offence as provisions of S.17 of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 were not attracted in his case---Validity---Offences under S.6(2)(d) and S.6(2)(ee) of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 were not proved against the accused---Only offence proved against accused was that of criminal intimidation
under S.507, P.P.C. which was not a scheduled offence---Anti-Terrorism Court was empowered to try a non-
scheduled offence only along with/in addition to scheduled offence(s) at the same trial under S.17 of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 which did not empower an Anti-Terrorism Court to try non-scheduled offence when said court was not
trying a scheduled offence---Under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Anti-Terrorism Court was bound to transfer the
case of non-scheduled offence to any court having jurisdiction to try such offence---Once Anti-Terrorism Court had
formed the opinion that the only offence proved against the accused was criminal intimidation under S.507, P.P.C.,
the court should not have proceeded to convict the accused of the offence as S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did
not confer jurisdiction on said court to pass judgment on non-scheduled offence---Mere commencement of trial was
not a ground to decline transfer of case under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Impugned judgment being. without
jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law, could not be maintained---Constitutional petition was, therefore, converted
into special Anti-Terrorism-appeal--No limitation would run against the judgment of Anti-Terrorism Court on the
ground that such judgment was passed without jurisdiction---Appeal was allowed; impugned judgment was set aside
and case was remanded to the Anti-Terrorism Court for transfer to the Court of Session for trial in accordance with
law.
Dr. SOHRAB KHAN VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/147/148/149 & 425---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
Ss.6/7---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, mischief---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Only allegation against accused in the
F.I.R. was that he was found present at the place of incident, beyond that nothing was alleged against him---Other
17 co-accused named in the same crime had already been granted bail---Accused, in circumstances, was not only
entitled to grant of bail on merits, but also on the rule of consistency---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to
accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
ASADULLAH alias SHAKIRULLAH VS State
2002 PCr.LJ 1235, 2005 MLD 353, 2006 PCr.LJ 921, 2007 PCr.LJ 1011, 2008 PCr.LJ 710, PLD 2004 Lah. 779,
174 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-C , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-F , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-G , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--14 ,
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--4 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--114 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-H , Pakistan
Ss. 302/337-A/337-11/440/34/109/114---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7/21-C(7)(f), 21-F, 21-G &
23---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Ss.4 & 14---Qatl-e-amd, causing Shajjah, rash or negligent
act and mischief-Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Juvenile Court---Contention of accused
was that he being minor, could only be tried by court specially constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance,
2000, irrespective of the charge under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Deputy Advocate General had submitted that mere
juvenility of accused who was charged under Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 coupled with other charges of
P.P. C., could not take away the jurisdiction of a court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 having exclusive
jurisdiction over the charges of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was a special law was
enacted for the trial of the scheduled offences provided under the said Act---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance,
2000 was also a special law and was for trial of special class of offenders defined thereunder, and said Ordinance
provided exclusive jurisdiction to court constituted thereunder in a case where an accused was below the age of 18
years---Said Ordinance being later law, had further provided that its provisions would not be in derogation of any
law, but would be in addition to laws prevailing at the moment when said Ordinance, was promulgated---Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 was enforced in 1997, much prior to the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, which was
promulgated, in 2000---Later law/Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, in circumstances, would never affect
provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 14 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 had strengthened
the view that the court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had jurisdiction over the scheduled offence,
irrespective of any limit of age or any other class of offenders---Section 21-G, which was latest insertion in Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, had overriding effect over all the related provisions and provided exclusive jurisdiction to the
court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 over the offence defined in said Act by an offender including a
child/minor.
TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
175 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-H---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possession of arms---Appreciation of evidence---Identification of accused
immediately after the occurrence being not possible, his name did not appear in the F.I.R.---Substitution of two
empty shells, was not possible which was found from the scene and were sealed in the presence of witness for
onward transmission---Statements of witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. as well as the statements recorded
by competent Judicial Magistrate under S.164, Cr.P.C., did not suffer from any defect---All the possible legal
formalities were completed before recording of such statements---Such statements were voluntary and true---
Identification parade was conducted by a very competent and impartial Assistant Commissioner fulfilling all the
formalities of the identification parade in presence of witnesses, who deposed in favour of the prosecution and their
statements had not been shattered by the defence---Such fact had provided strong inference against accused and
proved the case against him and said piece of evidence was a strong link in the commission of offence---Defence
had failed to bring on record any circumstances whereby it could be considered that accused had been involved in
the case due to mala fide intention other than the motive put forward by the prosecution---Prosecution had
succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused---Judgment of conviction and sentence passed against accused was
based on fact; and nothing was available to indicate that judgment passed by the Trial Court was based on any error
of law or was opposed to well established principles of judicial approach; or it could in any manner be characterized
as unjustified---Sentence of death was rightly and carefully awarded to accused, which did not admit of any
interference by Chief Court.
S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-H---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possession of ' arms---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of
accused---After the amendment in S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 whereby a proviso had been added to the
section, legislature had made it mandatory that statement under said section would be admissible in evidence,
which had to be read with the provision of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
ISHTIAQ VS State
1983 SCMR 1292, 1987 SCMR 960, 1990 PCr.LJ 1018, 1990 PCr.LJ 1765, 1990 PCr.LJ 288, 1996 SCMR 908,
1998 SCMR 1156, 2003 YLR 2175, 2004 SCMR 331, 2006 MLD 480, 2006 PCr.LJ 1671, 2006 SCMR 1567, 2006
SCMR 1801, 2006 SCMR 1846, 2006 YLR 3213, 2007 YLR 954, 2009 PCr.LJ 1226, 2010 PCr.LJ 211, 2010 SCMR
385, 2010 SCMR 97, PLD 1963 Kar. 805, PLD 1990 Pesh. 10, PLD 1992 Pesh. 56, PLD 1995 SC 1, PLD 2002 SC
558,
TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , West
Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
176 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6/7/21-H---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, terrorism and recovery of arms---Appreciation of evidence---
F.I.R. had been lodged well in time and contents of F.I.R. disclosed the names of the injured, the deceased and that
of the witnesses---F.I.R. also disclosed the type of the weapons used in the offence---Narration of the F.I.R.
regarding the facts of the case had been put forward in a very natural manner and was confidence inspiring---
During the cross-examination, minor improvements had been brought on record, which were not of the intensity to
shatter the veracity of the said witnesses---Was very natural for the witness in the dark to identify an individual from
headlights of vehicle---Accused as well as the witness belonged to the same locality and question of mistaken
identity did not arise---Injured witness in his examination in the Trial Court had fully supported the prosecution
case---Other two witnesses had fully deposed against accused persons and the role played by them as well as the
arms used for the commission of the offence by accused persons, were identified---Two very important recovery
witnesses had proved the recoveries of the weapon used by accused---Both witnesses were impartial Police
personnel who did not belong to the locality and did not have any axe to grind---Preparation of the recovery memos
did not suffer from any infirmity---Recovered empty shells had matched the weapons of offence used which had
proved against accused---Incident was a result of sectarian hatred between the parties as many a case had
occurred within the vicinity of the complainant and accused party---Murders and attempted murders had occurred in
the past---Statements of the witnesses, examined backed up by the motive and weapons of offence proved against
the accused---Sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was upheld, in circumstances.
ISHTIAQ VS State
TERM , Confession--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--34 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
Ss. 302/324/34--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7/21-H---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, terrorism and recovery of arms---Appreciation of evidence---
Confession---Evidentiary value---Privilege of the prosecution to adduce or abandon any witness---Non-examination
of the other occupants of the vehicle in question; was not necessary when there was already a sizeable amount of
material placed by the prosecution against accused on record---Prosecution had the privilage to adduce or abandon
any witness which it would think unnecessary---Confessional statements recorded under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, could by itself not constitute a material evidence on which a criminal case could be based for conviction---
Confessional statement recorded by a Police Officer would be very useful to rely on, but it could be read as a piece
of evidence along with the other material on record.
SHI RAZ-UL-HAQ VS State
1993 SCMR 1660, 1999 SCMR 2841, 1999 SCMR 610,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , Proof--TERM ,
177 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(1)(b) & 7(e)---Abduction for ransom---Reappraisal of evidence---
Sentence, reduction in---Proof---Prosecution witness who witnessed incident of abduction was not examined on
such aspect of the case and there was evidence of victim only---Ransom amount was not recovered from accused
persons---Prosecution further alleged that accused had used credit and debit cards and lass of Rupees were taken
out from the account of victim but no cogent evidence through bank officials had been produced to prove such
allegation---Confinement of victim was of two days only with no allegation of torture---Sentence of death awarded to
three accused persons by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Validity---Such was not an extreme case of
abduction, therefore, in such case sentence of death to three persons was harsh---Supreme Court maintained the
conviction but converted sentence of death awarded to accused into imprisonment for life.
SOORAT KHAN VS ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, SIBI
PLD 2005 SC 530,
S. 6---Terrorism---Meaning---"Terrorism" means the use or threat of "action" where the "action" falls within the
meaning of sub-section (2) of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and creates a serious risk to safety of the public or
a section of the public, or is designed to frighten the general public and thereby prevents them from coming out and
carrying on their lawful trade and daily business, and disrupts civil life.
SOORAT KHAN VS ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, SIBI
2009 SCMR 527, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2005 SC 530,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--32 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional
petition--TERM , Explosive Substances Act 1908--3 , Explosive Substances Act 1908--4 , Explosive Substances Act
1908--5 , Jurisdiction--TERM ,
Ss. 6 & 32---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Ss.3/4/5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.
199---Constitutional petition---Jurisdiction---Complainant had no enmity with any person, nor had he nominated any
individual in the promptly lodged F.I.R.---Explosive device was allegedly used in order to force the employees of
Chamalung Security Force constituted by the Government, to give up their employment and dissuade others from
joining the said Force---Son of the complainant had allegedly been killed in the incident by stepping on a mine---
Case thus fell within the definition of "terrorism" as contained in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and was triable
by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court---Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, being not applicable to Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, by virtue of S.32 thereof, reference of Trial Court to Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, in
the impugned order, was misplaced---Order of the Trial Court having the powers of Anti-Terrorism Court directing
the transfer of the case to the ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction was, consequently, set aside with direction to
Trial Court to proceed with the trial itself in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.
178 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Citation Name: 2010 GBLR 550 SUPREME-APPELATE-COURT-GILGIT Bookmark this Case
THE STATE VS SADAQAT JAN
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appeal Against Acquittal--TERM , Appraisal of evidence--
S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Gilgit-
Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)---Qatl-eamd, terrorism and possessing
arms---Appraisal of evidence---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused, but Chief Court set aside judgment of
the Trial Court and acquitted accused by giving him benefit of doubt---Appeal against acquittal---Prosecution had
established accusation of accused beyond shadow of doubt by producing cogent and concrete evidence, which had
rightly been considered by the Trial Court---Defence Counsel could not succeed to shatter the veracity of the
statement of the prosecution witness who narrated facts and directly connected accused with the commission of
offence---Weapon of offence, .30 bore pistol, was recovered immediately after the arrest of accused from his
personal possession---In presence of recovery memo, delay in lodging of F.I.R. under S.13 of West Pakistan Arms
Ordinance, 1965, had no effect at all on the merits of the main case---Crime empty shell and live cartridges were
sent to ballistic expert, which were examined and found to have been fired from the pistol recovered at the instance
of accused---Number and type of weapon was the same, which was shown in the recovery memo---No fabrication or
alteration of recovery memo.---Version of prosecution witnesses was consistent, confidence inspiring and worthy of
credence which had rightly been taken into consideration and they by no stretch of imagination, could be labelled as
interested witnesses---Prosecution had substantiated the allegations against accused beyond any shadow of
doubt---Case against accused, in circumstances was fit for life imprisonment---Impugned judgment of Chief Court
was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored to meet the ends of justice.
SHAKIRULLAH alias DOCTOR VS State
Ss. 302/324/109/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-e-amd; attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and
abetment---Delay in conclusion of trial---Case was pending for the last 4/5 years without any progress---Trial Court
was directed to submit report to the Registrar of Supreme Appellate Court regarding inordinate delay in conclusion
of the trial, within a fortnight for perusal of the Supreme Appellate Court and order in chamber.
ARSHAD WALI VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Gilgit
Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009--60 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--118 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--212 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--216 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
179 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/118/212/216---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7--Gilgit-

Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)---Qatl-e-amd, concealing the offence,
harbouring offender and causing terrorism---Bail, grant of---Occurrence was one of dark night---Prosecution had no
eyewitness---Delayed recovery of weapons of offence did not connect the accused with the crime, particularly when
the same, though handled by the accused, were not stated to have been used by them in the commission of the
offence---Confessional statements of accused if believed to be true and correctly recorded, even then the same
could not be made a basis for their conviction in the absence of any direct evidence against them on record---
Concession of bail could not be withheld merely on the plea of heinousness of the offence, if the accused were
otherwise entitled to grant of bail---Senior police officials had failed to conduct a fair, transparent and untainted
investigation in the case---Guilt of accused needed further probe within the purview of S.497(2), Cr. P.C.---Accused
were admitted to bail in circumstances.
ARSHAD WALI VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Bail--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 ,
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/118/212/216---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Qatl-e-amd

and terrorism---Bail---Heinousness of offence---Principle---Concession of bail cannot be withheld on the plea of
heinousness of the offence, if the accused is otherwise found entitled to the same.
THE STATE through Advocate-General VS ASIF AHMED
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Gilgit
Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009--60 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
S.497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6/7---Qatl-e-amd,

attempt to commit qatl-e-amd causing terrorism---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009,
Art.60(13)---Bail, cancellation of---Parties had agreed on not arguing the application on merits, if Trial Court was
directed to conclude the trial within two months---Charge in the case had been framed without any delay, but trial
could not be concluded due to some unavoidable circumstances and ultimately bail had been granted to accused---
Prolonged delay in conclusion of trial was misuse of process of law and courts and also injustice to the parties---
Trial Court was directed to conduct day to day trial, avoid adjournment without compelling reason, adopt coercive
measures for attendance of witnesses and conclude the trial within two months---In case of default, complainant or
the State could move a fresh application for cancellation of bail against the accused before the Trial Court for
decision on merits---Petition was disposed of accordingly.
180 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Chaudhry ASGHAR SHAHEEN VS Raja MUNAWAR HUSSAIN
S. 6---'Terrorism'---Determination as to whether an offence falls within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Essentials elaborated.
Chaudhry ASGHAR SHAHEEN VS Raja MUNAWAR HUSSAIN
PLD 2009 SC 11,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitution of Pakistan
1973--199 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-L , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--440 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--452 , Pakistan
Ss.6/7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/440/452/506/337-A(ii)/337-L(2)/109---Constitution of Pakistan

(1973), Art. 199---Act of terrorism, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, mischief committed after preparation made for
causing death for hurt, house-trespass after preparation or hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation,
causing hurt, abetment---Constitution petition---Transfer of case by Anti-Terrorism Court to Regular Court for trial---
Validity---Motivation, object, design or purpose behind an act had to be assessed to label the same as a terrorist
act---Two groups of Advocates had clashed with each other in a full house session of District Bar Association with
the agenda of discussing the probabilities of dismembering certain Members of District Bar Association, which was
purely a personal agenda and had nothing to do with any design to commit the act of 'terrorism'---Receipt of injuries
by a few during the occurrence was, at the most, an aftermath of the brawl between the two groups of Advocates
and by no stretch of imagination the occurrence contained in the F.I.R. or in the private complaint could be termed
as an act of terrorism---Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly concluded on sufficient reasons that the occurrence did not
fall within the mischief of terrorism as defined in section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and had termed the same as
a purely indigenous trouble, haunting affairs of the District Bar Association---Impugned order of transfer of case to
the Court of Area Magistrate did not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of the record---Constitutional petition
was dismissed in limine in circumstances.
NOOR JAHAN VS JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT BAHAWALPUR
1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--156 , Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) 1898--159 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code
181 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 380/447/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Ss.156 & 159---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Petitioner lodged F.I.R. for
offences under Ss. 380/447/148/149, P.P.C. read with Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---During investigation
eight accused persons were arrested and when their remand papers were presented before the Judge Anti-
Terrorism Court, he directed the deletion of Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court had given
findings of non-commission of terrorism after recording the statements of the witnesses, which would bring out that
no element of terrorism or panic was created by accused---Words used in S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were
very much clear on the point that court could pass order after taking cognizance of an offence at the relevant time---
Court, at the time of passing of impugned order, had not taken cognizance of the offence and no sufficient material
was available on record to delete the offence---Impugned order, in circumstances was premature which was set
aside with direction to decide the matter after taking cognizance of the offence with application of judicial mind after
recording some evidence.
FAWAD RASOOL VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.1, GUJRANWALA
2007 SCMR 142, 2008 SCMR 1631,
1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 ,
Ss. 302/324/148/149/109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7/23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),

Art.199---Constitutional petition---Application filed by the petitioner for transfer of case from the Anti-Terrorism Court
to the court of ordinary jurisdiction, having been dismissed, petitioner had assailed order of dismissal in
constitutional petition---Occurrence had taken place on a bridge where apart from rival party, many other people
were also present---Apart from three persons from the rival party two passersby lost their life, while 12 others
suffered firearm injuries---Such was neither a private nor an isolated place where there was no risk for general
public-Result of the occurrence itself had shown that apart from the deceased and injured passersby there must be
many more who must have felt a sense of insecurity as a result of occurrence---Prima facie, it could not be
presumed before recording of evidence, for the purposes of determining jurisdiction of the court that the act was not
one of terrorism---In the present case, death of two passersby and injuries to 12 others, prima facie indicated that
apart from them many others were also present at the time of occurrence, which must have created sense of
insecurity in the general public---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
TAHIR MUGHERI VS State
2002 PCr.LJ 186, 2005 YLR 358, PLD 1974 SC 224,
Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
182 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Kidnapping
or abduction for extortion---Bail, grant of---Bail had been sought by accused on the ground of hardship and delay in
conclusion of the trial---Accused was arrested on 5-11-2004 and since then he was in custody---High Court by its
order directed the Trial Court to decide the matter preferably within three months, but that order passed by the High
Court had not been complied with---Inordinate delay in prosecution amounting to abuse of process of law, could be
treated as sufficient ground for grant of bail---Alleged abductee sworn his affidavit in which he exonerated accused
from commission of offence of abduction---Statement of the abductee should be given proper weight while deciding
the matter of kidnapping for ransom---Accused, in circumstances, had succeeded in making out a case for grant of
bail---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD ALI VS State
1860--365-A , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
S. 365-A---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(e) &
7(e)---Kidnapping for ransom---Appreciation of evidence---Abductee being a principal victim had given a very
comprehensive account of the incident---Cross-examination conducted by the defence against the said witness
could not shatter his evidence---Such cross-examination could not even show any specific defence plea on the
basis of which one could assume that said witness had been challenged thereby in such process of evidence or he
deposed falsely against accused for any ill motive or vested interest, either within himself or because of his family---
Other witnesses who were father and uncle of the victim had also supported the case and cross-examination
conducted against them could not bring any fruitful result to the defence---Defence theory that came to light, for the
first time in the process of cross-examination that there was business rivalry between the brother-in-law of the
complainant and accused, due to which accused had falsely been involved in the case, being an after-thought, was
good for nothing---Rest of the witnesses, were official ones who also, had supported the case to their respective
extent and their evidence was also left unshattered in the cross-examination conducted by the defence against them
on the point of kidnapping---Certain irregularities committed by the Police in process of investigation, could hardly
have an adverse effect to the extent that on the basis of which the court could take an independent view that the
case of prosecution as to kidnapping was doubtful---Prosecution witnesses were trustworthy and confidence
inspiring in all respect---Charge of kidnapping for ransom as framed against accused, stood well proved beyond
shadow of any reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused for offence of kidnapping by the
Trial Court needed no interference at all---Case regarding the recovery of the T.T. pistol from accused, however, was
not open to be safely held as proved up to the required standard of law-Evidence on record did not support that the
said weapon was recovered by the Police from accused at the relevant time---Impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence awarded by the Trial Court under S.365-A, P.P.C., was maintained with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.,
whereas conviction and sentence awarded to accused for the offence under S.13(d) of West Pakistan Arms
Ordinance, 1965, was set aside in the interest of justice.
MUHAMMAD SADIQ VS THE STATE through Prosecutor General Sindh
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--377 ,
183 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302 & 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Qatl-e-amd, unnatural offence and terrorism---Accused
were bailed out and their application filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was also allowed by the Trial Court observing that
it was not a case for cancellation of bail and that case was not to by tried by Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---Case of
prosecution was in four parts; firstly, minor boy was abducted; secondly unnatural offence was committed with him;
thirdly, he was murdered; and lastly his body was concealed in bag and was thrown in Ganda Nala in order to
destroy the evidence---Offences in the case definitely covered definition of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Ordinary Court, in circumstances had no jurisdiction to try the case---Order passed by the Trial Court was set
aside with the direction to file the report before the Anti-Terrorism Court having jurisdiction.
MUZAMIL VS State
2002 SCMR 908, 2007 SCMR 142, 2009 MLD 616, PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2003 SC 396, PLD 2003 SC 704, PLD
2009 SC 11,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--201 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--342 ,
Ss. 302, 342, 201, 337-A(i), F(i), 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23---Constitution of
Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to regular/ordinary court---Petitioners/accused in
one criminal case, had committed murder of two minor kids by way of slaughtering their throats in presence of
complainant and other eye-witnesses after fastening the complainant and witnesses---Accused persons took the
dead bodies of both deceased and buried those at the scene of the offence in a ditch---In second case the accused
persons had committed triple murders by firing with K.Ks. on their victims and causing fire-arm injuries to
prosecution witnesses---After receipt of challan, the accused filed application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
for transfer of case to Sessions Court contending that under the circumstances of the case no case of terrorism
.was made out to attract the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act. 1997---Validity---Term `terrorism' had wide
meaning and for the purpose of assessment as to whether sense of fear and insecurity spread amongst the public
at large, the manner in which the incident took place, coupled with the place, where the incident took place were
very material---Brutal act of murder at public place was sufficient to hold that by the act of the commission of murder
at public place, terror would strike amongst the public at the said locality where incident took place and S.6 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 would attract---Details of incident in the case had shown that by the act of the accused persons
brutally killing two minor children and three other innocent persons at public place, sense of fear and insecurity
amongst the public at large was created---In killing three persons by using K. Ks. at public place and injuring three
prosecution witnesses, the accused had shown their brutality which had created sense of fear and insecurity
amongst the persons of that locality---For the purpose of ascertaining the fact of creation of sense of fear and
insecurity amongst the people at large, it was not necessary that evidence must be recorded by the court to arrive at
such conclusion but the facts contained in the F.I.R. and the nature of the offence committed at the public place,
were sufficient to assess as to whether the sense of fear and insecurity was created amongst the public-at-large---In
the present case, the two minors had been brutally slaughtered and three were killed at public place by inflicting
injuries from Kalashnikov---Application for transfer of case to ordinary/Sessions Court, was rightly dismissed by the
Special Court.
184 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

ALLAH NAWAZ VS State
2000 PCr.LJ 1195, 2005 YLR 1679,
1973--199 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--435 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--439 , Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Explosive Substances Act 1908--3 , Explosive Substances Act 1908--4 ,
Explosive Substances Act 1908--5 ,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Ss.3, 4 & 5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.435,
439 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Possession of heavy material of explosive substance---
Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to regular court---Accused who were found carrying heavy material of
explosive substance, had disclosed that they had been given a task for explosion and that they were on the way to
implement their plans---Application filed by accused under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of their case
from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary/regular court, had been dismissed by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---
Neither revisional jurisdiction under Ss.435/439, Cr.P.C. nor jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could be invoked to
challenge and impugn an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court; however, that would not close the chapter---If
no adequate remedy was available or provided under law, High Court could always use its constitutional authority
under Art.199 of the Constitution---Discretion was always available with High Court to treat any application or
proceedings, in appropriate cases, as application under Art.199 of the of Constitution---High Court, in the present
case, treated revision petition as constitutional petition and decided the same ---Prima facie, from the statement of
accused, it appeared that attempt to explode explosive substance was admitted---Order passed by Anti-Terrorism
Court, whereby application for transfer of case to ordinary court was dismissed, could not be taken exception to in
circumstances.
EHSANULLAH VS State
1986 PCr.LJ 637, 1989 PCr.LJ 43, 1989 SCMR 2056, 1992 SCMR 2088, 1993 SCMR 2377, 1993 SCMR 550, 1994
MLD 164, 2000 SCMR 1758, 2001 SCMR 424, 2007 SCMR 162, 2009 PCr.LJ 940, PLD 1964 Kar. 356, PLD 1964
SC 26, PLD 2003 SC 350,
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , West Pakistan
Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
185 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302(b)/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---West. Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Terrorism and possession of arms---Appreciation of
evidence---Benefit of doubt---Fire shots received by the deceased and injured were from a high velocity fire-arm and
not from a low velocity gun such as a Repeater, which was a shotgun for hunting birds---Spot inspection was
conducted well in time which gave no time to the prosecution to plant empties of any other calibre and also sealed
the chance of inclusion of any other innocent person as accused---Benefit of doubt could be extended to two co-
accused out of three as the opening of fire shots by said two co-accused was a far fetched probability and their
involvement could be a result of the sectarian hatred whereby the maximum number of persons of the other sect
could be put to task---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which was a special law provided for the offences committed under
S.6 of said Act, would override the provisions of general law as the offence of murder had been provided in the
schedule of Special Law wherein the offence was punishable with death---In the light of the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, the recoveries, the motive and the other circumstances of the case, prosecution had proved
the fact of murder of the deceased and injuries sustained by four other persons---Prosecution had proved its case to
the hilt against the accused---Case under S.13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was also proved against
said accused; his conviction and sentence was upheld and murder reference to his extent was answered in
affirmative, however benefit of doubt was extended to other two accused persons and their conviction and sentence
were set aside and they could be released.
SADAQAT JAN VS State
1985 PCrLJ 451, 1990 PCr.LJ 1765, 1993 SCMR 550, 1997 SCMR 89, 1998 PCr.LJ 1486, 2000 MLD 605, 2000
PCr.LJ 1799, 2001 PCr.LJ 453, 2001 PCr.LJ 754, 2002 SCMR 1842, 2007 SCMR 1825, 2009 SCMR 84, PLD 1963
SC 17, PLD 1964 SC 26, PLD 2003 SC 350,
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Qatl-e-amd--Term , West Pakistan Arms
Ordinance 1965--13 ,
S. 302/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-
e-amd---Terrorism and possession of arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused had been
implicated for commission of offence along with two other persons, who had been assigned equal roles without any
difference---One of the prosecution witnesses had stated that she saw the accused opening fire shot at the
deceased and did not charge the other accused persons---Another prosecution witness had also improved his
statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. regarding dying declaration of deceased wherein accused had been
nominated as assailant---Statement of another witness was recorded 23 days after the occurrence who had stated
that he saw the accused running away from the place of occurrence after hearing the fire shots---Statement of said
witness was not confidence inspiring in the light of his delayed statement under S.161, Cr.P.C.; he was not an eye-
witness of the occurrence, but he had stated that he saw one person lying in the channel after firing of shots---Said
witness had not mentioned the presence of other witnesses at the spot---Good prima facie case did not exist against
accused for his conviction on the basis of other material placed on record---Original report of Fire Arms Expert was
not placed on record but a photo copy of the same was found in the file and number of the pistol mentioned therein
was different as shown in the recovery memo.---Prosecution, in circumstances, had failed to prove its case beyond
any reasonable doubt and statements of prosecution witnesses were not worth relying---While giving benefit of
doubt to the accused, his conviction and sentence, was set aside and he was directed to be released.
186 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Maulana ABDUL AZIZ VS State
1969 PCr.LJ 358, 1969 SCMR 174, 1979 SCMR 103, 1979 SCMR 254, 1989 SCMR 899, PLD 1971 SC 174, PLD
1977 SC 642, PLD 1985 SC 182, PLD 1995 SC 34, PLD 1996 SC 241,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-C , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitution of Pakistan
1973--185 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 , Pakistan Penal Code
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.448/427/452/506/147/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7 & 21-
C(4)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Bail, grant of---Sufficient incriminating material was lacking prima
facie connecting the accused with the commission of the alleged offence---Presumption of innocence of accused is
always paramount irrespective of the heinousness of the alleged offences---No plausible justification could be given
as to why Chowkidar of the Library had failed to nominate the accused in the F.I.R. lodged by him, but implicated
him in his supplementary statement---No prima facie case was made out against the accused---Impugned order of
High Court refusing bail to accused being laconic could not be kept intact, as the case fell within the ambit of further
inquiry---It was not known how the alleged offences were abetted or facilitated by the accused in the absence of any
evidence in this regard on record---Section 21-C(4) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not applicable to the case
of accused---Submission of challan after a lapse of eight months in the Court by itself was sufficient to grant bail to
accused---Ipsi dixit of police regarding guilt or innocence of accused could not be depended upon, as the same
would be determined by Trial Court on the basis of evidence, yet to be collected---Accused was admitted to bail in
circumstances.
BASHIR AHMED VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
2003 SCMR 1323, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2004 Lah. 199,
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Determination as to whether an offence falls within the ambit of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Essentials.
ALI DAD VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Explosive Substances
Act 1908--4 ,
187 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S.4---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(1)(c), (n), (2) & 7(h)---Appreciation of evidence---One of prosecution
witnesses had stated that on hearing explosion he found accused running from the place of occurrence who was
apprehended by other Police Officials---Other prosecution witness had not supported the case of said witness---
Accused could not be held guilty for causing explosion without any other evidence on record connecting accused
with the commission of offence, merely on . the ground that he was seen running away---Conviction could only be
based on tangible evidence implicating accused in the commission of offence beyond any shadow of doubt,
because it was natural for the people to leave hurriedly the place where explosion occurred---Suspicion howsoever
strong could not take place of legal proof---No conviction, in circumstances could be sustained on mere suspicion---
Prosecution had failed to prove charge against accused---Accused was acquitted of the charge and was released.
AYUB KHAN VS State
2002 PCr.LJ 1470, 2003 SCMR 1237,
1860--468 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--471 , Terrorism--TERM , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 , West
Ss.468/471---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Ss.13/14---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 &
7---Appreciation of evidence---Terrorism---Scope---Scope of terrorism had been explained in various clauses of S.6
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Action which created a serious risk to 'safety of public was terrorism under clause (i) of
subsection (2) of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Transportation of a huge quantity of illicit arms and ammunition,
could be, by no stretch of imagination, for any lawful activities, peaceful purpose or welfare of the public---Only
conclusion which could be drawn was that such transportation involved serious risk to safety of public which was
already under wave of extreme terrorism---Occurrence, in the present case, took place at a place where many
disinterested persons were present around who were not cited as witnesses of recovery---People did not co-operate
and did not consent to be cited as witnesses of recovery; in terrorism and narcotics cases, because it invited
annoyance of people relating to drug mafia and terrorists which they could not afford to face---Police witnesses; in
such circumstances, were good witnesses, unless mala fide was established against them---In the present case,
statements of police witnesses were neither contradictory nor infirm, nor having any inherent flaw---Statements of
prosecution witnesses' relating to recovery in the case, were consistent on material points and intrinsically rang
true---Said witnesses were rightly relied upon by the Trial Court---Accused was acquitted for offence under
Ss.468/471, P.P.C. and S.14 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, but conviction of accused under S.7(h) Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 as well as under S.13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was maintained.
Citation Name: 2009 PCrLJ 573 NORTHERN AREAS CHIEF COURT Bookmark this Case
ITRAT HUSSAIN VS State
(Cr.P.C) 1898--497 ,
188 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 497---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7/21(D)(4)---Bail, grant of---Accused had been arrested soon after
the occurrence in January, 2005---After his arrest the trial could not be concluded within a reasonable time due to
non-availability of Anti-Terrorism Court's Judge for a considerable period---When the trial came close to
pronouncement of judgment, one of the alleged absconding accused in the same case was arrested---Ultimately,
the Judge had no option except to re-start the trial, pending judgment against accused---Accused, in circumstances,
had to wait for conclusion of trial against the newly arrested accused---No provision existed in the relevant or
general law that judgment could partially be announced against those who had faced trial---Plea of hardship, in
circumstances found existed in favour of accused---Co-accused, who had been attributed similar role, had already
been released on bail by Chief Court---Rule of consistency demanded that accused too was entitled for the same
treatment.
Rana SHAHBAZ RIAZ VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
2002 SCMR 908,
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/109/324/148/149---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),

Art.199---Constitutional petition---Sending back challan to the court of ordinary jurisdiction--Petitioner/complainant
had challenged the validity of order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court whereby an application
moved by accused under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for sending the challan to the court of ordinary jurisdiction
was accepted and the challan was sent to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Under provisions of S.6 of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it was not necessary that the commission of murder must have created panic and terror
among the people---Courts had only to see whether the terrorist act was such which would have the tendency to
create sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of the society---Court had to see the
psychological impact created by such act upon the minds of the people and it was not necessary that the said act
must have taken place within the view of general public so as to bring it within the encompass of the Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997---Even an act having taken place in a barbaric and gruesome manner, if it had created fear and insecurity,
would. certainly come within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Person would commit a terrorist act, if in
order to or if the effect of his actions would be to strike terror or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people or
any section of the people---In the present case occurrence had taken place on the main road and in the main Bazar
in front of Jamia Masjid in which murder of three innocent persons had been committed allegedly by the accused
persons by firing with kalashnikovs and the complainant had also been injured , which must have caused shock,
fear and insecurity among the people of the vicinity---If no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence
at the time of spot inspection by the police, it could not be said that firing was not made and that occurrence had not
taken place---All three deceased persons had received three to seven injuries on their persons and complainant had
also sustained two fire-arm injuries on his person---Impugned order was set aside in circumstances.
JANAN alias JANO CHANDIO VS State
189 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

1860--353 ,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/353/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) Ss.6/7---Bail, refusal
of-'-Accused persons were nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing firearm injuries to deceased---
Prosecution witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. had fully supported the version of complainant given
by him in the F.I.R.---Medical evidence also supported the version of complainant party---Recovery of kalashnikov
was from one of accused persons, and pistol from the other---No enmity with the Police had been suggested or
pleaded by accused---Sufficient material was available against accused persons to suggest that there were
reasonable grounds to believe that accused were connected with the alleged offence---Counsel for accused had
failed to make out a case of further inquiry---Contention of counsel for accused persons that one of co-accused was
found and let off, had no force as said co-accused had been shown as absconder in the charge-sheet-Deeper
appreciation of material at bail stage was deprecated---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.
Mst. RUBINA VS State
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A ,
Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.561-A & 439---Applicant/victim girl had made allegations that
she was abducted, kept in illegal confinement and gang raped by accused persons nominated in the F.I.R.---Alleged
victim was referred to Medical Superintendent for her medical check-up and she was duly examined by
Gynaecologist and from the medical report it had fully been proved that applicant was gang-raped---Counsel for
applicant/victim girl alleged that accused persons, who were very influential, had obtained a report from
Investigating Officer for exonerating themselves---Investigating Officer submitted report under S.173, Cr.P.C. before
Magistrate for the disposal of case in "B" Class---Investigating Officer, instead of helping the poor innocent young
student orphan girl, mixed up with accused persons and tried to declare accused persons innocent---Investigating
Officer for ulterior motives spoiled the case of prosecution and on the contrary implicated the orphan young girl for
registration of case against her---Addl. Advocate-General also opposed impugned order of the Magistrate submitting
that Investigating Officer had wilfully and deliberately conducted dishonest investigation and failed to perform his
legal duties---Criminal revision application was converted into application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and allowing same
impugned order was set aside---Immediate indulgence was solicited from R.P.O. concerned for assigning
investigation of the case to an officer not below the rank of D.S.P.---Keeping in view the gravity of offence Court
directed that case be challaned after honest investigation to Anti-Terrorism Court as provisions of Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, appeared to be attracted.
ALI HASSAN VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM ,
190 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S.6(2)(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.356-A---Appreciation of evidence---Out of the two abductees, one could not
be traced and the other did not implicate either co-accused in whose presence the trial was conducted or accused
who was tried in absentia---Evidence of two Police Officers, who claimed to have identified the dacoits, was not
believed by High Court in appeal filed by co-accused'--After acquittal of co-accused by the High Court, conviction in
absentia of accused, who had a better case for acquittal, could not be sustained on same evidence---No useful
purpose would be served to examine the main witnesses again---State counsel was also of the same opinion---
Conviction and sentence of accused recorded in his absentia, were set aside, and he was acquitted.
ALI HASSAN VS State
Ss. 6(2)(e), 19(12) & 25--Conviction in absentia, remedy for---Two options were available, in law, to a person
convicted in absentia; he could request the Trial Court to set aside his conviction under S.19(12) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 by showing that he did not abscond and could also file appeal under S.25 of the said Act---Filing
of application under S.19(12) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was not an indispensable condition for filing appeal
under S.25 of the Act--Powers of the Appellate Court were wider than the powers of the Trial Court in the matter of
setting aside conviction in absentia---Trial Court, after setting aside the conviction, would proceed to try accused in
his presence; while the Appellate Court after setting aside the conviction could remand the case to the Trial Court
for fresh trial or could even acquit him on merits---If a case was fit for acquittal on merits, it would be futile to conduct
fresh trial---If a person convicted in absentia was entitled to acquittal on merits, he could not be forced to undergo
the botheration of trial---Under S.25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, nothing was to suggest that a person convicted and
sentenced in absentia, could not file appeal without first making application under S.19(12) of said Act.
Citation Name: 2009 YLR 297 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case
Moulana ABDUL AZIZ VS State
1996 SCMR 364, 1996 SCMR 493, 2007 PCr.LJ 1488, 2007 PCr.LJ 966, 2008 SCMR 174,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-D , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Code of Civil Procedure
1908--23-A , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--427 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--448 , West Pakistan Family Courts Act
1964--14 ,
191 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.427, 448, 452, 506, 147 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7
& 21-D(iv)---Bail, refusal of---Complainant was Chowkidar of the Library, which the student had forcibly occupied---
Complainant was quite an independent person and he was not a police personnel---Serious efforts were made for
the restoration of possession peacefully---Accused was the person who was Incharge of Lal Masjid and Jamia
Hafza and all the students of said Madrasa were under his control and they were ready to go to any extent in
compliance of his order and as such he was in commanding position---Situation, which was created at the time of
occurrence, had created a panic/insecurity in the people of area---Window pans were broken during that occurrence
and loss was caused to the library, which was a public property---Whole area where said library was situated, was
presenting a picture of 'No go area' and people of that area were feeling sense of insecurity, and they could not even
purchase the things of daily use and all that had made the case, falling under the purview of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997---Contention of counsel for accused that S. 452, P.P.C. did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497,
Cr. P. C. had no force---Each case should be decided on its own merits---Even bail could be refused in the case
which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P. C. ---Principle of consistency was also not applicable
in the case, as the cases in which bail had been granted, were different from the present case, on facts and merits---
Deeper appreciation of evidence could not be made while hearing the bail application, but only tentative assessment
of material collected by the prosecution against accused, could be made---Accused had been implicated in the
case, on the basis of supplementary statement made by Chowkidar of the Library, who was a relevant person---No
mala fide or ill-will had come on record, to falsely implicate accused in the case, question of false implication did not
arise---Challan in the case had been submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction---Accused having failed to
make out the case for bail, his bail application was dismissed.

MUHAMMAD ARIF VS State
1992 SCMR 602, 2005 YLR 1865, PLD 1989 Lah. 554,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--10 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--10 , Constitution of
Pakistan 1973--185 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--9 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--34 ,
S. 302(b)/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(a) & 10(11-A)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.9,
10(1) & 185(3)---Trial of accused was conducted in absentia and without providing him opportunity of hearing---Said
trial of accused was violative of Arts.9 & 10(1) of the Constitution and S.10(11-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997-
Judgments, convictions and sentences rendered by both the Courts below in the absence of the accused, thus,
were not sustainable under the law and necessitated retrial of the case---Petition for leave to appeal was
consequently converted into appeal which was accepted and conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the
Trial Court and maintained by High Court, were set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh
trial of accused in accordance with law.
ABDUL MAJEED VS State
192 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--395 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13-E ,
Ss. 302(b) & 395---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(i), 7 & 6(3)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of
1965), S.13(e)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Name of accused did not appear in the F.I.R., lodged
after an unexplained delay of six hours---Accused was arrested after two months whereafter identification parade
had been conducted through witnesses under the supervision of Naib Tehsildar who had conducted investigation as
well---Conviction and sentences of accused were urged to have been based on no evidence and rather on
inadmissible evidence, which could not be treated as inclusive warranting a sentence on capital charge---Leave to
appeal was granted to accused for reappraisal of the evidence in order to ascertain whether the principles for safe
administration of criminal justice, as laid down by Supreme Court, were fully adhered to.
NISAR VS State
----S. 10(4)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(b)---Capital punishment, awarding of---Duty of Court stated.
The Courts of law are expected and required to decide the cases on the basis of evidence adduced, without being
overawed by emotions and sentiments. Nevertheless, extraordinary care and caution is to be taken while dealing
with the offences of grave nature, attracting capital punishment, which could not be awarded unless charge against
the accused is proved by leading absolutely credible, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence.
TARIQ MAHMOOD VS State
2002 SCMR 1225, 2002 SCMR 908, 2005 SCMR 802, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2005 SC 530,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--23-A , Constitution of
Pakistan 1973--185 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code
Ss. 302/324/148 & 149/341/506---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.185(3)---Transfer of case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction was assailed by the complainant---Case of accused
who had clean past rested on a lower pedestal than that of terrorists and sectarian criminals who killed innocent
persons either to weaken the State or to cause damage to the parties of the rival sect---Terrorists or the sectarian
killers did not have any personal grudge or motive against the innocent victims---In the present case admittedly a
feud existed between the parties over a piece of land prior to the occurrence---No independent evidence was
available on record to show that the act of accused led to striking of terror among the masses---Site plan had denied
the claim of the complainant that the occurrence had taken place in a "Bazaar" which was heavily populated---
Criminal cases should be tried and decided by the Courts having plenary jurisdiction until and unless extraordinary
circumstances existed justifying the trial of the case by special Courts---Impugned order did not call for any
interference---Leave to appeal was declined to complainant accordingly.
193 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

ALI RAZA alias KALOO VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 ,
Ss. 324 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 (c) & 6---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---
Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---One accused had not filed an appeal challenging his convictions
and sentences passed by Trial Court and High Court while exercising its suo motu jurisdiction under section 561-A,
Cr. P. C. had also dealt with his case---Occurrence had taken place because of police encounter---Accused were
named in the F.I.R. and they had caused eight injuries on the person of a police officer who had supported the
prosecution case and his statement was corroborated by another prosecution witness---False implication of accused
was out of question due to non-existence of any enmity between the police officials and the accused---No specific
injury had been attributed to any of the accused---Convictions of accused under Ss. 324, P.P.C. and 353, P.P.C.
were, therefore, maintained, but their sentence under S. 324, P.P.C. was reduced from 10 years' R.I each in
circumstances.
ALI RAZA alias KALOO VS State
1986 SCMR 174,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Terrorism--TERM ,
Ss.6 & 7(c)---Terrorism---Case against accused was not a case of terrorism but of police encounter and police had
given the occurrence the shape of terrorism---Provisions of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, being not
applicable, accused were acquitted of the charge under S.7 (c) of the said Act---Appeal was disposed of
accordingly.
Hafiz MUHAMMAD SALEHEEN VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM, RAWALPINDI
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A ,
Ss. 6(1)(b), 7 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(iii), 147 & 149---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of Session---Persons who
were stated to have initiated occurrence, had come to offer their prayer, at the spur of moment were enraged by the
word of caution by the complainant/petitioner to them in the matter of reciting `Kalma' loudly while other people were
still offering their prayers, which ultimately led to scuffle resulting in injuries recorded under S.337-A(iii), P.P.C. to
some persons---Section 6(1), P,P.C. did not refer to a design and intention to coerce and intimidate a particular
sect---Design and intention was further clarified by the definition of word `sectarian' and `sectarian hatred' as given
in S.2(u)(v) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Such an intention or design was not apparent on the face of the F.I.R.---
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
194 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MATI-UR-REHMAN VS ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
Ss.395/353/324/186/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7, 6(2)(m)(n), 6(1)(b) & 2(w)---Constitution of

Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Anti-Terrorism Court had dismissed the application of the
accused for transfer of the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction vide impugned order---Validity---Accused and his
co-accused had allegedly launched an assault upon members of the police force and some revenue officials so as
to deter them from performing their official duties and had injured seven police officers---Actus reus attributed to the
accused and his co-accused had, prima facie, attracted the provisions of S.6(2)(m) & (n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Said assault mounted by 35/40 persons was apparently designed to intimidate and overawe the
Government, so as to attract the mens rea contemplated by the provisions of S.6(1)(b) of the said Act---Seven
police officers had sustained eighteen injuries at the hands of accused party and three of them had received injuries
on their heads exposing their bones, which could be termed as "dangerous to life" so as to attract the definition of
"serious" provided by S.2(w) of the said Act---Impugned order, therefore, did not call for any interference---
Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
SHAHBAZ NOOR VS State
2007 SCMR 142,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--
TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 ,
Ss.324, 506, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Petitioner had sought quashing of F.I.R. or in the alternate
deletion of S.324, P.P.C. and S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 on the ground that from the plain reading of the F.I.R.,
no case under the said provisions was made out and said sections had been added only with a view to magnifying
the offence and making the same non-bailable---On prosecution's own showing, the Golf Course in question was
being constructed at a far off place away from residential area and the main road---Apart from that if murderous
assault had been launched in the manner as alleged in the F.I.R., then some damage ought to have been caused---
F.I.R., mentioned that petitioners/accused and their co-accused, who were carrying dangerous fire-arms, had
resorted to firing, but strangely enough no physical harm, whatsoever, had been caused by such firing---Case did
not attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---No statement was on record of any of the foreign or
Pakistani workers, who had allegedly been scared away to support the claim of prosecution---Applicability of S.324,
P.P.C. also did not appear to be made out for the simple reason that no harm was caused, though petitioners were
allegedly armed with formidable weapons---Neither S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 nor S.324, P.P.C. was
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
195 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

HUZOOR BUX VS State
2002 SCMR 908, PLD 2000 Karachi 89, PLD 2003 SC 224,
S. 6---"Terrorist act"---Meaning and object---"Terrorism" is to be determined from the criminal act designed to create
a sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the general public disturbing even tempo of life and tranquillity of the
society---Other ordinary crimes are not to be dealt under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Physical harm to the victim
is not the sole criterion to determine the question of terrorism, as motive should be the key word or the objective of
the act---When an offence is committed without the background of any enmity and manner and method of the
commission of the offence is such that the public at large individually and collectively feel apprehension that any one
of them can at any time be subjected to similar act of brutality, disturbing the physical and mental peace and
tranquillity of the people, giving impression' that the writ of the Government has been rendered ineffective, with the
result that nobody is safe in pursuing ordinary pursuits of life, then such act certainly amounts to an act of "terrorism"
as defined in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
HUZOOR BUX VS State
2000 PCr.LJ 1195, 2000 PCr.LJ 1322, 2002 SCMR 908, PLD 2000 Karachi 89, PLD 2003 SC 224,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--435 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--439 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--337-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--392 ,
Ss. 365-A/392/353/324/337-A(i)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), Ss.435/439---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Facts of the ease did not provide any suitable and
appropriate circumstance for exercise of powers as required under Ss.435 and 439, Cr.P.C. and, as such, Revision
Application was not maintainable, though the same could be converted into a constitutional petition---Anti-Terrorism
Court vide impugned order had dismissed the application of accused for transfer of the case to an ordinary Sessions
Court---Validity---For determining he issue whether the offence was triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or not
nature of the offence had to be seen in the light of the averments that how the same had been committed along with
the particular place of incident and the time 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---Incident in the present case had taken place at odd
hours of the night near a graveyard---Complainant was neither going to be kidnapped for the particular purpose of
ransom, nor any demand for ransom had been made so far---Some cash and a Mobile phone were allegedly robbed
from the complainant---Prima facie, case against accused was of abduction falling under S.365, P.P.C.---Matter,
thus, did not fall within the ambit of S.6 punishable under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the same was not
triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision petition was consequently converted into a constitutional petition in the
interest of justice and impugned order was set aside with the direction to Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer the case to
the ordinary Sessions Court for trial in accordance with law---Petition was allowed accordingly.
196 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
2001 PCr.LJ 581, 2003 SCMR 1323, 2003 YLR 1977, 2007 SCMR 142, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2004 SC 917,
PLD 2005 SC 530, PLD 2007 SC 571,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Transfer of Case--TERM , West Pakistan Arms
S. 526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 324/34---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Anti-
Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Transfer of case---Scope---Act of terrorism and jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism
Court---If an offender with an intention to strike terror in the people or any section of the people etc. would commit
scheduled offence, then only he would be subject to jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---In order to determine 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 F.I.R., record of case and surrounding circumstances---Whether a particular act
was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design and purpose behind such act was to be seen---Whether
said act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public or in any section of public or community or in any
sect---Offence alleged in the present case had taken place because of the previous enmity and private vendetta---
Facts of the case revealed that alleged sprinkling of the spirit on the person of the victim was within the boundary
walls of the house of applicant and was not in public---Element of striking terror for creating sense of fear and
insecurity in the people or 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---Application for transfer of case to the Anti-Terrorism Court filed under S.526, Cr.P.C.
was dismissed, in circumstances.
REHMAT ALI VS State
1989 SCMR 434,
197 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302, 324, 353 & 354/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(a), (m) & 7---Appreciation of evidence---No
motive was available for the murder in the case---No independent witness from the locality was examined to prove
the prosecution case through reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence---Eye-witnesses were interested witnesses
and had motive to implicate accused---Ocular account was not confidence-inspiring and trustworthy---Shaky
evidence of the eye-witnesses could not be relied upon for recording the capital punishment, when their evidence
was not corroborated by independent and reliable source---In absence of clear and straightforward evidence,
doubtful narration of the prosecution witnesses did not carry weight to record conviction---Accused and co-accused,
after being arrested, were not put to identification parade, though they were produced before the Magistrate for
remand purpose during investigation---Police party was not in a position to identify the culprits at the time of the
occurrence--Later when statement of the complainant under S.154, Cr.P.C. was recorded, he had given the names
of accused involved in different dacoity cases, but no description of accused or that of co-accused was available on
record---Injured could not be conveniently held that he sustained fire-arm injury at the hands of accused for two
reasons; firstly that he being not traceable could not be examined; secondly that none of the prosecution witnesses
had come forward to support the prosecution case to the extent of injury sustained by the injured---Even Doctor was
not examined---Testimony of the police officials could not be the basis of the evidence---Arrest of accused was
highly doubtful and from the circumstances a reasonable doubt could be drawn that defence evidence could be
most probable---Impugned judgment of the Trial Court, awarding conviction and sentence to accused was set aside,
in circumstances and accused was ordered to be released.
MOHABBAT ALI and another VS State
----Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34, 427, 324, 148 & 109---Act of terrorism---Determination---
Principles---Offence took place in the fields of sugarcane and banana, about 14/15 miles away from main road and
case was sent to Anti-Terrorism Court for trial---Accused filed application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for
transfer of case from Special Court to the Court of Sessions Judge, which application was dismissed by High
Court---Plea raised by accused was that facts mentioned in F.I.R. did not disclose any act of terrorism, justifying trial
before Special Court---Validity---In order to determine as to whether offence would fall within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over allegations made in F.I.R., record of case and
surrounding circumstances; it was also necessary to examine that ingredients of alleged offence had any nexus with
the object of case as contemplated under Ss. 6, 7 and 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Whether a particular act was
an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or purpose behind such act was to be seen and it was also
to be seen as to whether such act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in public or any section of public or
community or in any sect---Alleged offence took place because of previous enmity and private vendetta---Incident
admittedly took place inside the fields of sugarcane and banana cultivated in jungle about 14/15 miles away from
main road---Motive as alleged in F.I.R. was also to be given specific attention which indicated that there was
personal enmity between the parties over land and murder case of Haries of complainant---Intention of accused was
not at all to create sense of insecurity or to destabilize public at large or to advance any sectarian cause---Design or
purpose of offence as contemplated by provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not attracted---Supreme
Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the order passed by High Court---Supreme
Court directed the Special Court to transmit record of the case to Sessions Judge for its disposal in accordance with
law---Appeal was allowed.
198 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

FAZAL DAD VS Col.(Rtd.) GHULAM MUHAMMAD MALIK
PLD 1993 SC 473,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE ,
---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.
FAZAL DAD VS Col.(Rtd.) GHULAM MUHAMMAD MALIK
PLD 2000 SC 111,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7-A , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7-B , Pakistan Penal Code
---Ss. 435/447/427---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7-A & 7-B---Act of terrorism---Determination---
Transfer of case to Special Court---Case registered against accused was transferred to Special Court but High
Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the transfer order---Validity---Ingredients of offences
mentioned in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had' no nexus with the contents of the F.I.R.---Nothing was brought on
record to show that occurrence created terror, panic or sense of insecurity among people by securing possession of
land in question by accused---Case against accused did not qualify to be a `terrorist act' within contemplation of S.6
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or its Schedule---High Court was justified to transfer the case to ordinary Court---Appeal
was dismissed.
GHULAM HUSAIN SOOMRO VS THE STATE
1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
199 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

--S. 365-A/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(e) & 7(e)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---
Reappraisal of evidence---Delay in lodging of F.I.R.---Minor discrepancies and deviations in prosecution evidence---
Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he along with co-accused kidnapped the son of complainant---
Captive was recovered at pointing out of accused; chains and cloth used at time of confinement of captive were
recovered from possession of accused and co-accused---Trial Court while convicting accused and a co-accused
sentenced accused/petitioner to imprisonment for life and forfeiture of his movable and immovable properties---
Appeal filed against conviction was dismissed by High Court---Accused contended that F.I.R. was belated by 36
hours and that accused was falsely implicated on account of his business relations with father of captive---Validity---
Mere delay in lodging of F.I.R. was not always fatal to prosecution cases, though in some cases it might militate
against bona, fides of prosecution---In cases involving kidnapping of young persons for ransom, parents as well as
police invariably try their best to locate the victim rather than promptly lodging F.I.R. for fear of death of victim---No
adverse inference was to be drawn against prosecution on ground of delay alone in lodging of F.I.R.---Cases of
kidnapping for ransom were to be dealt with iron hands and even if there were minor discrepancies and deviations
in evidence or shortfalls on part of investigating agency, the Courts were always to be dynamic and pragmatic in
approaching true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions arising out of facts
and circumstances of each case---Where innocent persons were wrongly roped in by prosecution or falsely involved
by unscrupulous investigating officers, Courts were to maintain balance while arriving at truth or falsehood of the
matter by sifting grain from chaff---Accused in the present case was directly involved in commission of offence and
he was rightly convicted by Trial Court---Judgments passed by Trial Court and High Court did not suffer from
misreading of record or misconstruction of evidence---Leave to appeal was refused.
Haji ARIF VS State
1999 MLD 506, 2003 PCr.LJ 1548, PLD 1996 SC 122,
Code 1860--34 ,
200 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(2)(a)(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of
doubt---Both prosecution witnesses had stated that accused attacked with dandas and thereafter absconding
accused started firing---Statement of both said prosecution witnesses to the extent of dandas, was not supported by
medical evidence---None of the deceased and injured had received any injury with. blunt or sharp weapon---Both
witnesses had not given details of injuries caused with blunt or sharp weapon and had not attributed any specific
role or injury to any accused---Vague and general allegations had been alleged against accused and both witnesses
had contradicted each other---Statements of both prosecution witnesses, were negated by medical evidence to the
extent of accused---F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of 4/5 hours and possibility could not be ruled out that F.I.R. was
lodged after due deliberation, which had created doubt on the prosecution case---Deep rooted enmity existed
between the parties and complainant had motive to falsely implicate accused in the case by spreading the net wider
by involving all the male members of accused side---Place where incident took place, was a thoroughfare and soon
after the incident many people gathered over there, but despite that no independent witness was examined in the
case and no reason had been .given for not producing independent witness---Both prosecution witnesses being
inimical towards accused due to old enmity, their evidence could not be relied upon qua accused without any strong
corroborative evidence---Presence of accused at the place of incident was highly doubtful---Case as set up by
prosecution was highly improbable and did not appeal to prudent mind---Eye-witnesses account was unreasonable
and improbable qua the case of accused and it could be safely held that due to previous enmity false implication of
accused, could not be ruled out---Prosecution, in circumstances having failed to prove case against accused they
were acquitted of the charge by giving them benefit of doubt and were released---Prosecution, however, having
proved its case against absconding co-accused beyond any shadow of doubt, judgment passed against them by
Special Court, was uphold and murder reference to their extent, was answered in affirmative.
Citation Name: 2007 PCRLJ 1945 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD SHAFA VS State
2003 SCMR 1696, 2004 SCMR 1560, PLD 1992 Pesh. 74,
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Bail, refusal
of---Accused not named in F.I.R.---Complainant did not claim to be an eye-witness of the occurrence hence merely
absence of the names of accused in the F.I.R. did not reflect any adverse effect on prosecution---Statements of
prosecution witnesses were not contradictory and they supported the version of prosecution---Record of Telephone
Department produced by prosecution materially connected the accused in the abetment of alleged offence---
Accused statedly had been seen with the absconding accused after attacking the house of deceased---Prima facie
case was in the hands of prosecution---Trial had commenced and case was fixed for evidence---Bail petition was
declined in circumstances.
MURAD ALI VS State
1995 PCr.LJ 1613,
201 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/114/109/396/452/401---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),

Ss.6/7---Bail on medical grounds, refusal of---Accused was suffering from "C.A. Thyroid" disease---Said disease
being not manageable in District Headquarter Hospital, medical authorities had referred the accused to another
hospital out of city for treatment---Trial of the case had concluded, but judgment could not be passed due to non-
availability of the Judge,. Anti-Terrorism Court in the area---Bail at such juncture was not allowed to the accused by
the Chief Court, as the same was likely to influence the fair adjudication of the case---Prosecution was, however,
directed to shift the accused to the hospital as advised under strict escort and protection within a week---Bail
application was dismissed accordingly.
MERAJ HUSSAIN VS JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM, NORTHERN AREAS, GILGIT
2005 MLD 1028,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--
TERM , Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--4 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--34 ,
---S. 324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000),
S.4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Trial of juvenile offenders by Anti-Terrorism
Court---Jurisdiction---Later law promulgated by Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, did not curtail or limit the
power of Anti-Terrorism Court pertaining to the trial of a "child", but had further regularized the same, as the said
Ordinance would work in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for time being In force---"Child" as
defined in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, involved in a case of terrorism as defined in Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997, could legitimately be tried by a Court established under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the provisions
contained in Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, would not affect the trial of a "child" by the Anti-Terrorism
Court---Impugned order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the application of accused for their trial by a
Juvenile Court, was consequently upheld---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. 2005 MLD 1028
dissented from.
SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, GUJRANWALA
2005 PCr.LJ 957, 2007 SCMR 142, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2004 SC 917,
202 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional
petition---Attack in day time by twenty six (26) accused persons after making announcement from mosque to attack
complainant party---Direct firing by accused from four sides on complainant party resulted into death of one person
and injuries to three (3) persons---Constitutional petition for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of
general jurisdiction---Plea that occurrence was based on enmity between parties and accused never intended to
strike terror or fear to public at large---Validity---If accused wanted to confine effect or fear of their attack to
complainant party, then they would not have gone to mosque to snake their intention known to public at large----
Purpose of going of accused to mosque (House of the God) before such attack would not be other than to terrorize
the people of the vicinity---Purpose of accused to commit occurrence in such manner was to cause fear and create
panic, terror and traumatic effect in whole vicinity---Mosque was a public place to which public or Ummah had free
access---Provision of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would apply to such case---High Court dismissed constitutional
petition in circumstances.
ABDUL SATTAR VS AMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN
---Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, determination of---While deciding the question of jurisdiction it
would be necessary to examine that the ingredients of the alleged occurrence have any nexus with the object of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 & 8 thereof---For determining whether a particular act is an
act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or purpose behind lane same has to be seen.
LIAQUAT ALI VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.1, GUJRANWALA
1973--199 , Explosive Substances Act 1908--3 , Explosive Substances Act 1908--4 , Pakistan Penal Code
---Ss.324 & 353--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Ss.3 & 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional
petition---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary court---Entire case had been built up on the strength
of police witnesses alone---Despite availability of public witnesses at the spot, not a single person from the public
was shown in the investigation---Fire-arms and empties collected from the place of occurrence, had not been sent to
the Forensic Science Expert to prove the factum that crime empties had been actually fired from the fire-arms
allegedly recovered from petitioners/ accused---Prima facie no material was on the file to suggest that accused had
resorted to firing at the police party---No police officer sustained any injury, despite the fact that indiscriminate firing
by petitioners had been alleged against members of the police party who were many in number---Factum of firing by
petitioner at the police party had not been brought on the file through any independent source---Act of petitioners did
not fall within the purview of Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Impugned order was set aside and case was
transferred to ordinary court of competent jurisdiction for trial.
203 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

1988 PCr.LJ 1736,
Code 1860--34 ,
----Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Occurrence
had taken place at time of morning prayer when it was still dark and witnesses claimed that they had seen the
occurrence in the light of torch---At the relevant time only one of accused persons was known to the witnesses,
whereas remaining accused were not known to them---Prosecution case was that witnesses had seen occurrence
from distance more than eighty feet and in the light of torch identification of accused, who were not known to
witnesses, from such a distance was highly doubtful---One of .the prosecution witnesses who claimed to have
identified accused during identification parade, while deposing before the Trial Court had specifically stated that he
had not identified any accused---Said statement of witness was sufficient to doubt the credibility of the witness qua
the identification parade---No evidence was available against second co-accused, except evidence of abscondence
and that piece of evidence in isolation, was not sufficient to uphold his conviction and sentence---Case of accused
and one of his co-accused being full of doubt, they were entitled to get benefit of the same---Conviction and
sentence awarded to said two accused persons by the Trial. Court, were set aside and they stood acquitted from the
charge, and were released.
PLD 2003 SC 262,
----Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Appreciation of evidence---Name of second co-accused
was mentioned in promptly lodged F.I.R. with a specific role of causing injuries to deceased with pistol---Both
prosecution witnesses, while supporting prosecution case had specifically narrated the participation of said co-
accused---During investigation two empties were also recovered from the spot which along with pistol recovered on
the pointation of said co-accused were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and report of said
Laboratory was positive---Recovery evidence, in circumstances, had rendered a very strong corroboration to the
ocular account narrated by independent and disinterested witnesses---No doubt said co-accused was tried in
absentia, but the Trial Court, after complying with all legal formalities, declared said co-accused as proclaimed
offender and proceeded with the matter---Death sentence awarded to accused was confirmed and reference to his
extent was answered in affirmative in view of ample evidence on record to connect the co-accused with the
commission of offence.
Citation Name: 2007 PCRLJ 1933 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
NASEER AHMED VS JUDGE ANTI-TERORRISM COURT-III, LAHORE
1994 SCMR 717,
204 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM ,
---S. 6(1)(g)(m) & (n)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Setting aside order of the
Special Court---F.I.R. showed allegation that petitioner/accused had blocked the road through burnt tyres; that when
the police party tried to remove the hindrances to open the road,. apart from firing in the air, stones were also thrown
on the police party by .the accused and some of .the officials were also .injured---No medico-legal report of any of
the injured was shown---No recovery of any stone/brick or of any of the burnt vehicles or tyres was made---No
statement of any person from the public was recorded to the effect. that the road was blocked and because of the
act of accused any one had suffered any trouble---Jurisdiction of Special Court could be determined on the basis of
F.I.R. and other material produced by the prosecution at the time of presentation of the challan---Investigation in the
case was complete---Alleged incident was recorded two days after its occurrence---Such delay of two days also
smacked of mala fides on the part of the police---Impugned order of the Special Court was set aside and police was
directed by the High Court, to submit the challan of the case in the ordinary criminal court of competent jurisdiction.
AZAD QADEER VS State
2007 SCMR 142,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM ,
---Ss. 4, 6, 7 & 23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to regular

Court---No previous enmity existed between the parties---Occurrence had taken place in a restaurant which was
also an open place for the public situated in the market---Accused not only caused injuries and trauma to the
injured, complainant and his son, but it created fear and sense of insecurity in the whole vicinity and area---
Occurrence had taken place in one of the busiest place of the City---Offences committed by accused mentioned in
F.I.R, had clearly shown the motivation, object and design behind the occurrence, was to frighten and traumatize not
only the complainant party, but the whole locality---Accused had come from jail only a few days before the
occurrence---Record of accused persons was also present in the court, which had shown that all members of the
family were involved in a number of criminal cases of similar nature---Impugned order whereby application of
petitioner for transfer of case to ordinary court of jurisdiction, was dismissed, was in conformity with case (2007
SCMR 142)---Constitutional petition filed against order of Anti-Terrorism Court whereby application under S.23 of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of case was dismissed, being devoid of any substance, was dismissed.
IFTIKHAR AHMAD VS SPECIAL COURT NO.1, LAHORE
Penal Code 1860--427 , Railways Act 1890--121 , Railways Act 1890--128 ,
205 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

---Ss. 6(2)(m)(n), 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 224, 225, 353, 427, 148 & 149---Railways Act (IX of
1890), Ss.121 & 128---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to
ordinary court---Petitioners/accused had challenged order passed by Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, through
which the Court had dismissed application of petitioners for transfer of case to ordinary court---Co-accused got
released petitioners from custody of police forcibly---Accused persons entered in the Boghi of the train made firing
which prima facie created fear and terror amongst the persons in the train---Contents of F.I.R. had revealed that
offence under S.6(2)(m)(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, prima facie had been made out against the petitioners---
Even otherwise after arrest of petitioner, handcuff was recovered from his possession and weapons of offence, were
also recovered from other petitioners---No irregularity and improbability, having been committed by the Trial Court
while passing impugned order, petition against said order being devoid of any merits, was dismissed, in
circumstances.
SULTAN VS State
2003 SCMR 1323, 2003 SCMR 1934, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2003 SC 704, PLD 2006 Lah.
651,
(Cr.P.C) 1898--439 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code
---Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 427, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
439---Terrorism---Offence in the case was committed on busy road---Traffic remained suspended in a queue of one
mile due to the said act of terrorism, which had shown that panic had been created among the people---Act of
petitioners/accused, prima facie had caused fear and insecurity in the minds of the people---Record further showed
that 24 empties of the bullets were recovered from the place of occurrence by the police, which had also shown that
accused had made reckless firing not only to kill complainant party, but also to frighten the general public Both the
screens of the car of complainant party were broken and complainant also received injury by the shot fired from
Klashnikov as also by the splinters of the broken screen---Not necessary that commission of offence might have
created panic and terror among the people, but the Court had only to see whether the "terrorist act" was such which
had the tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of the society---Act
of petitioners in the present case had created sense of fear and insecurity in the mind of the public, which would fall
within the ambit of Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court, in circumstances, was quite justified in
dismissing application of petitioners for transfer of case.
MEHBOOB ALI VS PROVINCE OF SINDH
PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2005 SC 530,
206 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----S. 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Terrorism---Transfer of case from

ordinary court to the Anti-Terrorism Court---Petitioner/complainant had prayed that offence committed by accused be
declared as 'act of terrorism' and case be sent up to the Anti-Terrorism Court for trial in accordance with law---
Validity---Offence in question was a dacoity in which a large number of buffaloes were robbed by accused who were
more than 20 in number and when complainant party and other villagers offered resistance, accused opened fire
killing two persons which certainly would have create4 a sense of panic and terror amongst the villagers thus
preventing them from leading their, normal life---Case, in circumstances was to be tried by Anti-Terrorism Court
having jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was allowed and case pending with Additional Sessions Judge, was
ordered to be transferred to Anti-Terrorism Court having jurisdiction which would dispose of the same in accordance
with law.
ALI MUHAMMAD VS State
---Ss. 302, 324 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were not
known to complainant prior to incident and their names were disclosed at Vardat by two witnesses---One of said
witnesses had neither supported the version given by the complainant on factum of the incident nor the case of
prosecution as set up in F.I.R.---Said witness was declared hostile by Special Prosecutor---Evidence given by said
witness, had not only damaged the very foundation of the prosecution case on factum of incident, but also rendered
the ocular account of the incident furnished by other witnesses as doubtful---Other prosecution witness, during
cross-examination had admitted that accused were not previously known to him---Said prosecution witness neither
had named nor pointed out accused who had fired at the deceased---Material discrepancies appeared in the
statement of prosecution witnesses as they had contradicted each other on material particulars of the case---Law
required that prosecution was duty bound to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt; and if any single and
slightest doubt was created, benefit of the same must go to accused and it was sufficient to discredit prosecution
story---Despite presence of independent persons of the vicinity at vardat at the relevant time, no one was examined
as witness in the case to support case of prosecution on factum of incident---All such circumstances had rendered
case of prosecution as doubtful---Eye-witness account of incident furnished by prosecution witnesses being
interested, discrepant, unreliable, inconsistent, untrustworthy, inspired no confidence---Evidence adduced by
prosecution was never subjected to legal scrutiny and without appreciating the same in accordance with law, Trial
Court concluded that the prosecution had succeeded to establish the charge against accused beyond shadow of
doubt---Prosecution, in circumstances had failed to bring home guilt to accused beyond reasonable doubt and
impugned judgment being based on non-reading and misreading of evidence, was not maintainable in law and was
set aside.
MUHAMAMD NADEEM VS State
1978 SCMR 136,
1860--377 ,
207 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

---S. 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(c) & 7(ii)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)---
Reappraisal of evidence---Prosecution had proved the accusation by adducing confidence inspiring evidence---
Victim had mentioned in categoric manner that sodomy was committed by the accused and inspite of victim having
been subjected to an exhaustive cross-examination and various searching questions, nothing beneficial to defence
could be extracted---Statement of victim had been corroborated by medical report wherein it was opined in categoric
terms that victim was subjected to sodomy---Complainant (father of the victim) had furnished a plausible justification
qua the minor delay in lodging the F.I.R.---Defence version put in juxtaposition with statement of accused under
S.342, Cr.P.C. was not convincing---Accused did not opt to get his statement recorded on oath and no evidence
whatsoever was led in defence---Plea of innocence and denial simpliciter by accused could not be believed in
circumstances and High Court had appreciated the entire evidence strictly in accordance with law and §ettled norms
of justice and conclusion arrived at by the High Court was based on sound reasoning which being well based did not
warrant interference by the Supreme Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
ZAHID IMRAN VS State
2002 SCMR 908, 2003 SCMR 1323, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2004 SC 917,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6-A , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 ,
--S. 6---Terrorist act---Connotation---Striking of terror is sine qua non for the application of the provisions as
contained in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which cannot be determined without examining the nature, gravity
and heinousness of the alleged offence, contents of the F.I.R., its cumulative effects on the society and a class of
persons and. the evidence which has come on record---Where the action of an accused person results in striking
terror or creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in a particular
vicinity, it amounts to terror and such an action squarely falls within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
ABDUL MAJEED VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , West Pakistan Arms
208 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

---S. 13(e)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(3) & 25---Appreciation of evidence---Witnesses had
corroborated each other on material point and proved the factum of recovery---Said witnesses were subjected to
lengthy cross-examination but no material contradiction or improvement cropped up damaging the case of
prosecution---Raid at the house of accused having been conducted at mid-night, non-association of private persons
in the raid or recovery proceedings was quite understandable---Defence had not alleged that independent witnesses
were available at the spot and the Levies intentionally did not ask them to witness the recovery---Levies or police
witnesses were as good as any other citizen and their character or credibility on that score could not be
impeached---Accused had not specifically alleged or brought on record any material to believe that prosecution
witnesses with a motive had falsely involved him in the case---Defence had pleaded that prosecution in order to
strengthen its case ' had involved accused in the matter---Ocular account furnished by prosecution witnesses was
more probable and appealed to prudent mind---Report of Expert with regard to Kalashnikov recovered from accused
and empty collected from the place of incident, was positive---Prosecution having successfully proved case against
accused beyond reasonable doubt, judgment of Trial Court, whereby accused was convicted and sentenced, not
suffering from any misreading or non-reading of evidence, could not be interfered with.
FAQIR MUHAMMAD VS State
PLD 2003 SC 1,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--529 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
1898--537 , Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--17 , Pakistan Penal Code
--Ss. 302, 324, 396 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.537 & 529---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Ss.6 & 7---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, (VI of 1979), S.17---Appreciation
of evidence---Occurrence though had taken place at night time, but head lights of vehicle concerned remained lit
after it was stopped---Moreover accused had gone close to each one of the. victims including injured prosecution
witness for personal search to rob them their valuables and cash---All prosecution witnesses including injured
witness, were subjected to cross-examination, but nothing favourable to the defence, could be brought on record
from that process---Four accused persons had made clean breast confession about their guilt---Medical evidence in
respect of deceased and injured prosecution witness, had confirmed that both of them had sustained bullet
injuries---Delay, if any in conducting identification parade of accused, was not of that nature, which could cast doubt
on its credibility as it was arranged inside the jail premises and Jail Superintendent had also endorsed same and it
was conducted by a Judicial Magistrate---Investigation of such crime which was to be carried out by a team of
investigation, though was carried out by A.S.-I., but no prejudice having been caused to accused due to said
omission, irregularity so committed was curable under S.537 and S.529, Cr.P.C.---Delay in recording confession of
accused, if any, would not always be fatal to prosecution---Testimony of injured prosecution witness was entirely in
line and in conformity with his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Case was not of mistaken identity---No
doubt existed about the guilt of accused for committing crime in a brutal manner in view of ocular account given by
disinterested witnesses; recovery of crime empties and looted money from accused, their confessional statements,
positive report of Arms Expert and the identification of accused in identification parade duly held etc.---Prosecution
had been able to establish guilt of all accused persons through overwhelming evidence of reasonable credibility and
beyond reasonable doubt---Accused were rightly convicted by Trial Court---Question of quantum of sentences
awarded to accused, however, was a matter of legal debate and serious consideration in view of peculiar facts and
circumstances of case and they were sentenced accordingly.
209 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

FIDA HUSSAIN VS ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, JAMPUR, DISTRICT RAJANPUR
1994 SCMR 2177, PLD 2005 SC 530,
1973--199 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--190 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--265-K ,
Penal Code 1860--365-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--506 ,
---Ss. 190 & 265-K---Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss.365-A, 337-A(i), 506(ii), 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to Anti-
Terrorism Court---Complaint in the case was directly filed by complainant against accused/petitioner before
Magistrate in terms of S.190, Cr.P.C. as a private complaint in ordinary case---Special Court was competent to
entertain private complaint directly and issue process to accused after holding preliminary inquiry in the case---
Adoption of process in terms of S.190, Cr.P.C., filing of complaint before Magistrate in a case exclusively triable by
Court of Session and then sending same by Magistrate to Sessions Court for trial, was not mandatory requirement
for filing private complaint before Special Court---Even filing of complaint before Magistrate, in the present case was
neither legal nor its sending to the Court of Session was legal requirement---All proceedings conducted by
Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge in complaint containing allegation of abduction for ransom, in
circumstances, was an exercise in futility---Such procedural defect, however, was neither fatal nor on basis of said
defect, petitioner/accused could be acquitted in terms of S.265-K, Cr.P.C. as claimed by accused--Order passed by
Additional Sessions Judge sending case to Anti-Terrorism Court for trial, was neither without lawful authority nor
suffered from any jurisdictional defect---Anti-Terrorism Court in terms of S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, could
refuse to try complaint and transfer same for trial in the Court of competent jurisdiction, if after recording evidence,
Anti-Terrorism Court was of the opinion that offence was not a Scheduled offence.
Rana ABDUL GHAFFAR VS ABDUL SHAKOOR
PLD 1992 Lah. 517, PLD 2002 SC 841,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--SCHEDULE , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--12 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
210 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

--Ss. 6, 12, 38, 28 & Third Schedule [as amended by Anti-Terrorism (Second Amendment) Act, 2004 (II of 2005)]---
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-A read with S. 34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 12- Constitutional
petition---Abduction or kidnapping for ransom---"Terrorism"---Transfer of case---Jurisdiction---Sentence---
Procedure---Trial, in the present case was being held by Additional Sessions Judge and during the said trial the
Anti-Terrorism (Second Amendment) Act, 2004 was enacted by which offence of "abduction or kidnapping for
ransom" was included in the Third Schedule appended with the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 making such offence triable
exclusively by an Anti-Terrorism Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Complainant (petitioner)
submitted application before the Anti-Terrorism Court invoking jurisdiction of that Court, under S.12 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 seeking calling for the record of the case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge so that
the case could be tried by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Application of the complainant was, however, dismissed by the
Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---Held, after introduction of the Anti-Terrorism (Second Amendment) Act,
2004, the case had to be transferred to Anti-Terrorism Court because now only such a Court as constituted under
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the same and sentence, if any, to be passed against
any accused person found guilty, in the case by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court; could not be greater than, or of a
kind different from the sentence prescribed by the relevant law for the relevant offence at the time the said offence
was committed---Change of forum of trial by operation of law was ordinarily applicable to all pending cases and
retrospectivity or otherwise of application of such law was not a relevant consideration in that regard---Judge, Anti-
Terrorism Court, was not justified in dismissing the complainant's application seeking transfer of the case in
circumstances---High Court clarified that keeping in view the provision of Art. 12 of the Constitution as well as of
S.38, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court shall see to it that in case of conviction of any accused
person in the present case the punishment to be awarded to such convict shall not be greater than, or of a kind
different from, the punishment prescribed by the law for the relevant offence at the time the offence was committed
and the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court shall proceed with the trial of the present case from the stage at which it was
pending immediately before transfer of the case by the High Court through the present judgment and in this regard
the Judge shall be guided by the provisions of S.28(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
Citation Name: 2006 PCRLJ 1866 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
ASMAT VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Explosive
Substances Act 1908--3 , Explosive Substances Act 1908--4 ,
---S. 497---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss.3 & 4---Bail,
grant of---Benefit of doubt---Entitlement---Scope---Case diary had shown that statements of prosecution witnesses
were not recorded on the date of occurrence and police was not aware of the names of culprits---Three prosecution
witnesses had not implicated any specific person in the commission of offence---Mere allegation of commission of
heinous offences or a person being involved in other cases, was not sufficient to withhold bail, as every case was to
be considered on its own merits--Accused was entitled to benefit of doubt even at the stage of bail---Facts and
circumstances from the perusal of police file were such that accused appeared to be entitled to be released on
bail---Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.
Syed HASHIM ALI VS State
1969 SCMR 388, 1999 SCMR 955,
211 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Code 1860--377 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--140 ,
---Ss. 302, 365 & 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(c)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Art.40---Appreciation of evidence---No eye-witness was of the incident---Prosecution case rested upon
circumstantial evidence, which was not enough to justify inference of guilt against accused---Fundamental principle
of universal application in the cases depending on circumstantial evidence was that in order to justify inference of
guilt, incriminating fact must be incompatible with the innocence of accused or the guilt of any other person and
incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt---In case of circumstantial
evidence, no link in the chain should be missing and all circumstances must lead to the guilt of accused---Statement
of both witnesses had not been supported and corroborated by Mashir of the place of incident who was an
independent witness and in whose presence place of incident was seen by the police and it was difficult to rely upon
any of the two contradictory statements with regard to place of incident---Place of recovery of dead body being
known to everybody, it could not be termed as discovery within the meaning of Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat,
1984---Before recording statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. legal requirements were not fulfilled---Said statement could
not be treated as substantive piece of evidence---Trial Court, was not justified in relying upon said statement---
Prosecution having failed to prove case against accused, appeal against impugned judgment of Trial Court, was
allowed.
Dr. KHALID MOIN VS State
1972 SCMR 40,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
---S. 365-A/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(2)(e)---Appreciation of evidence---Corroboration----

Principles---Where a piece of evidence requires corroboration, then it cannot corroborate another piece of evidence
which also requires corroboration.
1972 SCMR 40, 1974 PCr.LJ 391, 1976 SCMR 236, 1984 SCMR 42, 1992 SCMR 372, 1993 SCMR 550, 1998
SCMR 570, PLD 1960 Kar. 697, PLD 1960 SC 223,
212 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

---S. 365-A/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(2)(e)---Appreciation of' evidence---Complainant admittedly

despite having the knowledge of all the facts, did not disclose the same in the F.I.R.---No doubt, all the details were
not required to be necessarily given in the FIR., but at least major and important points were required to be
mentioned therein---Prosecution witnesses including the complainant and the abductee had made improvements in
their statements after consultations so as to fit in the circumstances of the case---Statement of the complainant
being a hearsay evidence was inadmissible in evidence---Testimony of the aforesaid witnesses having been
improved at the trial, required independent corroboration which was lacking in the case---Delay of two and a half
months in recording the statements of' the said prosecution witnesses by the police under S.161, Cr.P.C.; had not
been' explained by the prosecution, nor the same had been proved on record, which showed consultations between
them for improving their case slowly and gradually and giving full details of the incident---Identification parade being
only a corroborative piece of evidence was not enough for basing conviction and the same would lose its effect
when the substantive evidence stood disbelieved---Incriminating recovery of mobile phone from the accused was
not proved to be connected with the crime---Accused were acquitted in circumstances.
--S. 365-A/34-Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(2)(e)---Appreciation of evidence--- Identification parade---

Principles---Identification parade being a corroborative piece of' evidence can only corroborate the substantive
evidence---When substantive evidence is disbelieved, then conviction cannot be based on corroborative evidence.
RIAZ AHMAD VS State
1993 SCMR 550,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance
1979--10 , Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--17 , Pakistan Penal Code
213 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss. 302(b), 396 & 34---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(4)---Anti-
Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of
1979), S.17(4)---Appreciation of evidence---Sole witness in the case had improved his evidence from his earlier
statement in which he did not name accused nor any role was assigned to him---Said witness was untrustworthy
and improvements made by him in his earlier statement were unworthy of reliance and required to be taken out of
consideration---If evidence of said prosecution witness was taken out of consideration, then nothing was left with
prosecution to implicate accused---Oral evidence, in circumstances was insufficient to involve accused with
commission of crime---Evidence of identification test, could be used as a corroboration to substantive piece of
evidence---Substantive piece of evidence in shape of ocular testimony of prosecution witness, having already been
discarded, no substantive piece of evidence was left in the case, to base conviction solely on corroborative piece of
evidence---Identification test, carried no weight, in circumstances---Prosecution had not led any evidence to show
that accused had produced golden chains, in question---Jeweller to whom accused had allegedly sold said golden
chains had not supported prosecution case as he had categorically stated that accused did not bring chains before
him---Prosecution had failed to prove case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt---Accused was acquitted
extending him benefit of doubt and confirmation case was dismissed.
MUHAMMAD SHAHID HANIF VS State
1988 SCMR 39, 1991 SCMR 942, 1995 SCMR 1789, 2000 SCMR 785, 2003 YLR 166,
--Ss.302(b) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(a) & 7(i)(a)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of
1965), S.13(d)---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case rested upon four pieces of evidence; ocular account;
identification test; confessions; and recoveries---Ocular testimony consisted of sole witness who was driver of car of
deceased and his statement was fully supported and corroborated by medical evidence and complainant who was
wife of deceased and one other who was son of deceased---Presence of said prosecution witness at the scene of
incident had been fully established---Minor discrepancies in evidence of said prosecution witness, could not affect
his veracity, whose evidence was supported and corroborated by other pieces of evidence---Witness was a natural
witness and had no motive or cause to falsely implicate accused persons in such heinous crime---No enmity existed
between witness and accused persons---Mere delay of few hours in recording his evidence, per se was not fatal to
his evidence---Prosecution, in circumstances had provided ocular testimony---Identification test was conducted by
Judicial Magistrate completing all formalities and fulfilling requirements of law and no illegality was pointed out in
identification test---All required formalities were completed by Magistrate while recording confessions of accused---
Magistrate gave two hours time to accused for reflection and thereafter he again warned them separately, but
accused were ready to confess their guilt---Said confessions of accused were supported and corroborated by other
pieces of evidence---Accused, in confessional statements had also shown motive for causing murder which was
sectarian killing---Confessions were voluntary and true, which were sufficient to convict accused---Delay in recording
judicial confession per se was no ground to discard it as same was not obtained by coercion, threat or pressure---
Accused though had retracted confessions, but retracted confessions could be based for convicting accused if it
was voluntary and true---Defect in framing charge, if any could be cured under S.535, Cr.P.C.---Three empty bullet
shells were secured from the place of incident and other offensive weapons were also recovered and were sent for
examination and Ballistic Expert Report was positive---Prosecution, had proved recoveries of weapons used in
murder of deceased---Prosecution, in circumstances had proved case against accused persons beyond any
reasonable doubt---Accused were dealt with, as per law prevailing at the time of incident and were convicted and
sentenced accordingly.
214 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

AZIZULLAH VS State
1860--365-A ,
--S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2(m) & 6(a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---
Refusal of transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary Court---Validity---Material available with the
prosecution, prima facie, showed that the abductees were kidnapped, ransom of Rs.5 lac was paid, further demand
of ransom was also made and the accused had made the abductees hostages in their house---Said act had created
sense of fear and insecurity in the public and as such the ingredients of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
were attracted---Impugned order passed by High Court refusing to transfer the case from Anti-Terrorism Court to
ordinary Court did not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was
refused to accused accordingly.
Mirza SHAUKAT BAIG VS SHAHID JAMIL
2002 SCMR 1225, 2002 SCMR 908, 2003 SCMR 1323, PLD 1959 Lah. 495, PLD 1961 Dacca 21, PLD 1961 Lah.
221, PLD 1963 Kar. 118, PLD 1965 SC 640, PLD 1967 SC 1, PLD 2004 SC 917,
---S. 6---"Terrorism"---Meaning---When an offence falls within scope and ambit of S.6 of the Act---Principles---
Interpretation of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 6, of the Act is exhaustive and is capable enough to meet all
kinds of "terrorism" and does not revolve around the word "designed to" as used in S.6(1)(b) of the Act or mens rea
but the key word is "action" on the basis whereof it can be adjudged as to whether the alleged offence falls within
the scope of S.6 of the Act or otherwise---Word "designed to" can be equated with words wilfully, knowingly and
deliberately---Significance and the import of word "action" cannot be minimized and requires interpretation in a
broader perspective---Act is meant for the internal security of the country having no concern with the "terrorism"
prevailing at global level---"Terrorism" means the use or threat of "action" where the "action" falls within the meaning
of S.6(2) of the Act and creates a serious risk to safety of the public or a section of public, or is designed to frighten
the general public and thereby prevents them from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business,
and disrupts civil life---Such act shall amount to terrorism as enumerated in S.6 of the Act---Court cannot pick and
choose one or two sentences or a few words for academic purpose and their scholarly interpretation by ignoring the
Objects and Reasons for the promulgation of the Act and its Preamble---"Intention"---Role of, in determining the act
of terrorism---Section 6 creates a statutory offence and hence the question of knowledge or mens rea is immaterial if
in any case the legislature has omitted to prescribe a particular mental condition, the presumption is that the
omission is intentional and in such a case mens rea is not applicable---Striking off terror is sine qua non for the
application of the provisions as contained in S.6 of the Act which cannot be determined without examining the
nature, gravity and heinousness of the alleged offence, contents of F.I.R. its cumulative effects on the society or a
group of persons and the evidence which has come on record---What was the real intention of the offender can only
be adjudged on the basis of evidence which cannot be determined by invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction by the
High Court and the Special Judge can take care of the matter which can be transferred by him if it does not fall
within his jurisdictional domain--Principles.
215 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Mirza SHAUKAT BAIG VS SHAHID JAMIL
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 ,
--S. 6(1)(b)(c)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal had already been granted in another
case wherein the question pertaining to the jurisdiction of Special Judge under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in terms
of S.6(1)(b) or (c) was involved and in order to avoid conflicting judgments leave to appeal was granted in the
present case as well.
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.
Citation Name: 2005 PCRLJ 941 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State
1986 SCMR 962, 1987 SCMR 1543, 1994 SCMR 717, 1996 SCMR 856, PLD 1972 SC 271, PLD 2001 SC 169,
PLD 2003 Lah. 588,
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan
216 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

---Ss. 337-A, 353, 504 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2, 6, 7 & 25---Appreciation of evidence---
Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Appeal, limitation for---Disruption and interference with duties of public servant,
no doubt was caused by accused and a minor simple injury was also caused by him to public servant, but such an
act of violence against a public servant would not attract the definition of "Terrorism" contained in S.6 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 being not a "serious" interference, "serious" disruption, "serious" coercion or intimidation or a
"serious" violation against a public servant within the meaning of S.2(m) of said Act---Apparently attributed act on
the part of accused, in circumstances would not amount to be dangerous to life or property---Application of
provisions of S.6(2), (m) & (n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, appeared to be out of question---Court constituted under
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in circumstances had no jurisdiction to try the case for complete lack of jurisdiction and
cognizance taken by Anti-Terrorism Court of offences in the light of material produced with the challan and the
proceedings of case including trial and judgment finally passed by said Court as a result of said proceedings being
corum non judice, were nullity in the eye of law and same being void and without jurisdiction, could not be
maintained---Appeal against such judgment, in peculiar facts and circumstance of case, could not be hit by limitation
as no limitation against such order or judgment would run against the appellant---Conviction of accused and non-
appealing co-accused, including judgment impugned herein, were set aside---Appeal was allowed.

Haji ABDUL HAKEEM VS JUDGE SPECIAL COURT ANTI-TERRORISM, D. I. Khan
PLD 1993 SC 341, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2004 Pesh. 175,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
--Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional
petition---Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, applicability of---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary Court---
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would attracted only when act or threat to commit an act had nexus to Ss.6, 7 & 8 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 and consequences of the act or threat to commit an act falling within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, were be striking a terror and creating a sense of fear a insecurity among the people---Ordinary
crimes and physical harm to t victim would not fall within the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---For taking
cognizance of an offence, the Court had to see psychological impact of violence which was always considered a
decisive factor---Court also had to see that a criminal act designed to create a sense of fear and insecurity in the
minds of general people and creating a panic in the society, was parameters for bringing an offender within the
ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Present case did not qualify to be a terrorist act within the contemplation of S.6
or Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court accepting Constitutional petition, directed that case be
transferred to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
Mian MUHAMMAD GHAFOOR VS State
2002 SCMR 908, 2003 SCMR 1323, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2001 SC 169, PLD 2003 SC 396,
217 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

---Ss.302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7(a) & 8--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---
Constitutional petition---Quashing of order and transfer of case to the Court of normal criminal jurisdiction---
Petitioner/accused had prayed that impugned order passed by Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court against him be
declared illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect---Petitioner also prayed to set aside said order and
pass order of transfer of case to the Court of normal criminal jurisdiction---Petitioner had killed his wife and four
children in a brutal manner and said crime. had caused terror and created a sense of fear and insecurity in the
people---Paramount consideration, in such-like cases, to be taken note of was the culminative fall out of
occurrence---Present incident having taken place in the house of petitioner, it was .sufficient to attract provisions of
S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Time, place and manner of the act was of eminent importance---Very object to
promulgate Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was to control the acts of terrorism, sectarian violences and other heinous
offences as defined in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and their speedy trials---To bring an offence within the ambit
of said Act, it was essential to examine that said offence should have nexus with object of said Act and offences
covered by its Ss.6, 7 & 8---Impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity justifying interference of
High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition being devoid of force, was dismissed.
AKHTAR HUSSAIN VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.3, LAHORE
PLD 2004 Lah. 199,
---Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 321---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.
199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism to the Court of
ordinary jurisdiction---Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism, on application of accused, transferred case to Sessions Judge
for trial holding that offence against accused did not attract S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Complainant aggrieved
of said order of Special Judge, had assailed same in Constitutional petition---Accused had killed one and injured
other and both injured and deceased were employees of WAPDA and complainant was also employee of
WAPDA.---If the accused entertained suspicion that the deceased and injured officials were responsible for transfer
of accused, act of accused certainly fell within the mischief of S.6(c)(b)(M) & (N) of Anti-Terrorism Act. 1997 and it
amounted to coercion and intimidation of a public servant in order to force him to refrain from discharging his lawful
duties--Impugned order passed by Court below did not appear to fulfil jurisprudential requirements---Impugned order
was set aside with direction to Special Judge Anti-Terrorism to proceed with trial of case.
Qari ABDUL HAYEE VS State
1992 SCMR 602, PLD 1989 Lah. 554,
218 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss.302/149, 324/149, 295 & 148---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7(i), (ii)---Constitution of Pakistan
(1973), Art. 10---Trial in absentia---Validity---Trials of accused held in their absence are ultra vires of Article 10 of the
Constitution and are illegal.
Qari ABDUL HAYEE VS State
1992 SCMR 602, PLD 1989 Lah. 554,
---Ss.302/149, 324/149, 295 & 148---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7(i), (ii) ---Constitution of Pakistan
(1973), Art. 10---Trial in absentia---Validity---Trial of accused held in their absence being ultra vires of Article 10 of
the Constitution was not legal and, therefore, not sustainable--Accused having since surrendered before the
process of law their conviction was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh trial of accused
in accordance with law.
State VS Haji KALAY KHAN
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 ,
219 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----S. 417(2-A)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/337-H(2)/395/455/109/149---AntiTerrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
S.617(b)--Appeal against acquittal---Motive part of prosecution story as furnished and proved by
complainant/prosecution witness, was plausible, believable and convincing--Statement of prosecution witness
transpired that no background of previous enmity existed between parties---No question for false implication or
substitution of real culprits for accused/respondents, arose in circumstances---All prosecution witnesses, who
claimed to be eye-witnesses of recovery, had fully supported prosecution case---Rough site plans prepared by
Investigating Officer at the spot had shown that damage was not caused only to Eye Centre belonging to
complainant, but also to his Dairy Farm---Marks of bullets were found on main gate, operation theatre, roof of tube-
well room, tyres of tractors etc. --Spot inspection by Investigating Officer of place of occurrence revealed that in all
531 crime empties were recovered from there---Large quantity of crime empties recovered from the spot had shown
that different firearms were used by accused which also coincided with the number of assailants/respondents---All
Investigating Officers found accused guilty of offence and none of them uttered a word regarding innocence of
accused---All prosecution witnesses, who appeared before Trial Court to support prosecution case, were
disinterested, trustworthy and having no animosity against accused---Statements of said witnesses were
confidence-inspiring and there was no reason to discard such statements, especially when those were corroborated
by other witness who was a witness of "Wajtakkar"---Case against accused was not only proved through ocular
account, but same was also corroborated through other evidence i. e. evidence of recoveries of large quantity of
crime empties, weapons of offence, marks of bullets at the place of occurrence and different articles lying there
coupled with the opinion of police regarding guilt of accused---Delay in lodging F.I.R. was fully explained in F.I.R.
and even in such-like circumstances its late recording was not fatal to prosecution case---Judgment of Trial Court
was reflective of not only non reading and misreading of evidence on record, but was fanciful, artificial, against
weight of record and indicating grave miscarriage of justice done to complainant--One of accused who was made
accused of abetment only, was acquitted from case as provisions of S.109, P. P. C. were not attracted in facts and
circumstances of his case---Accepting appeal against acquittal, respondent, would be taken into custody to serve
out sentences recorded against them which would run concurrently.
MUHAMMAD IKRAM VS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT-I,
2002 PCr.LJ 1317, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2001 SC 521,
220 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

-Ss. 302, 380, 411 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Special Court to Court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction---
Challan of case in which a woman and a child aged 3/4 years were killed had been submitted before Judge Special
Court under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Application of accused filed under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for
transfer of case from Special Court to Court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction for trial having been rejected, accused
had filed Constitutional petition against rejection order passed by Special Court---Validity---Section 6(1) of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, had provided a criterion to determine where a criminal act was designed to create a sense of
fear or insecurity in the minds of general public disturbing even tempo of life and tranquility of Society, which could
be treated to be a terrorist act---Ordinary crimes were not to be dealt with under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Physical
harm to the victim was not the sole criterion to determine the question of terrorism---What was to be seen was the
psychological effect produced by violent action or having the potential of producing such an effect on the society as
a whole or a section thereof---Where a criminal act was designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the minds
of the general public disturbing even tempo of life and tranquility of the society, same could be treated to be a
terrorist act---Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place inside the house and a private motive was also
ascribed---Offence committed in the case though certainly was most heinous in nature, but it did not mean that it did
qualify to be a terrorist act within contemplation of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997 or the Schedule thereof---Reasons
stated by Special Court in the impugned order did not appear to be very sound---High Court accepting Constitutional
petition, declared impugned order without lawful authority and of no legal effect and set aside the same---Judge
Anti-Terrorism Court was directed to transmit record of petitioner's case to Sessions Judge concerned.
Malik MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State
1971 SCMR 686, 1985 PCr.LJ 325, 1986 PCr.LJ 2359, 1996 SCMR 931, 1997 SCMR 1234, 2002 SCMR 1381,
2002 SCMR 63, 2003 SCMR 1419, 2004 SCMR 1560, PLD 1970 SC 173, PLD 2002 SC 687, PLD 2003 Lah. 588,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--19 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-D , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7
, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--498 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
---S. 21-D, 19, 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.498---Bail, before
arrest, refusal of---Police Officers were the accused in the present case, who, during the operation in a jail, had
resorted to indiscriminate firing killing a number of persons; prima facie no caution, care or tactics were adopted to
carry out the operation; investigation was carried out in a partial and dishonest manner; clothes and crime weapons
were not taken into custody just to spoil the case of the prosecution; Site plan had not shown as to from where the
police party had fired; doctor who had examined one of the deceased had given report showing favour to the police
party; trial Court was yet to decide as to whether operation was undertaken in good faith or not after recording
evidence; State Counsel could not refute that it was not only gross criminal negligence of the accused who had
ordered for the operation and by implication, S.302, P.P.C. still held the field---All the accused police officers were
present at the spot at the time of operation---No case of bail before arrest, in favour of petitioners accused was
made out in circumstances---Bail petition of the accused was dismissed---Another accused who came in the jail
premises along with mother of one of the under-trial prisoners, used filthy language about the accused under-trial
prisoners and it was then that they were infuriated---Said accused also remained absconder for sufficiently long time
and there was apprehension that he will abscond after he was allowed bail, the provisions of S.21D, Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 were also attracted to his case, his bail application was also dismissed.
221 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Malik MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State
1986 PCr.LJ 2359, 2002 SCMR 63, PLD 2002 SC 687,
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--204 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--205 , Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) 1898--91 ,
--Ss. 204, 205, 91 & 190---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Summoning of accused under S.204,
Cr.P.C. in a complaint case---Procedure.
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SHAHID VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD DIVISION,

FAISALABAD
PLD 2004 Lah. 199,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan
1860--440 ,
---Ss.2(x), 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380, 436, 440, 148 & 149---Maintenance of Public Order
Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S.16---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition'-Petition for
transfer of case to Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Act complained of was fully covered within definition of word
"terrorism" as defined in S.2(x) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Act complained of had shown that a mob perhaps in
order to launch protest, had not only blocked the road, but also caused damage to the property lying in the house of
sister of complainant by sprinkling kerosene oil on same and burnt those to ashes and also looted valuables
therefrom---Such act did not at all suggest any private revenge or personal vendata on the part of mob or the
members of unlawful assembly formed for the purpose---Taking out procession and blocking the road and
committing other mentioned acts, certainly were designed to overcome the Government or public or community to
create sense of fear and insecurity in the society---Act of damaging house and property of sister of complainant fully
attracted offence of "mischief" defined in S.6(g) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Act complained of, in circumstances did
fall within the meaning of word "terrorism"---Members of unlawful assembly, perhaps wanted to express their anger
over incident forming the motive behind the incident mentioned in F.I.R.---Anti-Terrorism Court, in circumstances had
jurisdiction to try petitioner and his coaccused---Impugned order being open to no valid exception, petition was
dismissed.
SARFARAZ VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, BAHAWALPUR
222 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----S.6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 199---Constitutional petition---Application for sending case from Special
Judge Anti Terrorism Court to the Court of Sessions Judge---Rejection of application---Complainant got-registered
case against petitioner/accused and his co-accused alleging that his sick daughter left his house on her own, but
later on accused took her to different places and committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her and that she came back next day
of her own---Challan of case having been submitted before Special Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, accused submitted
application before Special Judge for sending the case to Court of Sessions Judge contending that it was not a
Scheduled offence---Said application having been rejected, accused filed Constitutional petition---Validity---Nothing
was on record to show that occurrence created terror, panic or sense of insecurity amongst people and there was
no sectarian violence but et was a case of rape---Court had y to see whether act had tendency to create sense of
fear or insecurity in the minds of people---No evidence to the effect that accused had teased, victim girl prior to
occurrence was available and no evidence was found to show that victim girl actually was abnormal---No medical
report to the effect was available that accused had administered her alcohol as alleged by prosecution---Act of
"terrorism" means an act which was committed with sole object to terrorize people and to feel them insecure, but
said ingredients were not found in the case--No justification, in circumstances existed for submitting challan before
Anti-Terrorism Court---Order rejecting application of accused for sending case to Sessions Judge passed by Special
Judge, was set aside by High Court with direction that challan of case would be submitted before Sessions Judge
concerned.
SARFARAZ VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, BAHAWALPUR
---S.6---Terrorism---Meaning---Act of "terrorism" means an act which was committed with sole object to terrorize
people and to feel them insecure.
AMIR KHAN VS State
---S. 6---Terrorism---If any person or persons commit the offence falling within the scope of subsections (1), (3) & (5)
of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, then he or they will be guilty of the act of terrorism by virtue of subsection (6)
thereof.
AMIR KHAN VS State
223 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

---S. 6---Terrorist act and terrorism---Difference---Apparent difference between the definition of "terrorist act" and
"terrorism" is that .in the earlier definition of "terrorist act" the mens rea or intention was not playing the decisive role,
but in the present definition of "terrorism" under subsections (1) & (5), the mens rea or intention is the deciding
factor of any act referred to in subsection (2).
AMIR KHAN VS State
---S. 6(1)(b) or (c)---Terrorism---Essentials---Essential ingredients of terrorism as defined in S.6, subsection (1)(b) or

(c) are (i) use or threat of action shall fall within the meaning of subsections (2)(a) to (n) & (ii) the use or threat is
intended or expected with its natural and inevitable consequences of coercing and intimidating or overawing the
Government or the public or a section of the public or community or sect or creating a sense of fear and insecurity in
the society, or (iii) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing the religious, sectarian or ethnic cause.
AMIR KHAN VS State
---S. 6(5)---Terrorism---Essentials---Essential ingredients of S.6, subsection (5) are (i) there should be prescribed
organization within the meaning of S.11-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, (ii) there should be an act and (iii) the act
should be done with the intention or with its expected natural and inevitable consequences of giving benefit to the
prescribed organization.
AMIR KHAN VS State
---S. 6---Act of terrorism---Connotation---An act of terrorism is a preplanned and organized system of intimidation,
the requisites and attributes of which are that it and its effects are made known to the people and are circulated
widely with exaggeration---Such act is neither hidden nor disguised and is committed with the sole object to terrorize
the people and to feel them insecure.
AMIR KHAN VS State
224 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

--Ss. 23, 6 & 7---Transfer of case from Special Court to Regular Court---Incident had taken place between two
factions of one political party in which leader of one group and his workers had participated using fire-arms and
threat killing two workers of the rival group---One group intended to scare its other group with the intention to coerce
and intimidate it by the use of fire-arms and threat---Offence, therefore, fell within the definition of "terrorism" as
given in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Anti-Terrorism Court had jurisdiction to try the case.
AMIR KHAN VS State
--Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Act of terrorism---In order to make an act punishable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it must be
shown that it bears nexus with Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the said Act.
AMIR KHAN VS State
--S. 6(3)---Terrorism---Essential---Requirements of terrorism as defined in S.6, subsection (3) are (i) the use of
action or threat of action shall fall within the scope of subsections (2)(a) to (n), (ii) the action falling under
subsections (2)(a) to (n) shall involve the use of fire-arms, explosives or any other weapon, (iii) the above act will
become terrorism regardless of the fulfilment or satisfaction of the circumstances or purposes mentioned in
subsection (1)(c) and (iv) the above act should have nexus with the object of the Anti-Terrorism tact, 1997.
MUHAMMAD AKBAR VS State
1981 SCMR 678, 1983 PCr.LJ 823, 1985 SCMR 1834, 1988 SCMR 557, 1992 SCMR 2088, 1995 SCMR 127, 1998
SCMR 2538, 1999 MLD 514, 2001 SCMR 1919, 2002 SCMR 820, PLD 1981 SC 142, PLD 1985 Kar. 595, PLD
1995 SC 1, PLD 1996 SC 97, PLD 2002 SC 1048,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
225 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

---S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(e)/7(e)---Appreciation of evidence ---Abductee, the most
important eye-witness, had identified both the accused in the Court and also picked them out in the identification
test, giving the graphic details of his ordeal---All the three eye-witnesses who were natural witnesses of occurrence
and whose presence at the scene of crime could not be doubted, had given the identical sequence of events and
had fully corroborated each other as to the date, time of occurrence and their respective locations at the scene---
One accused being already known to the family of the complainant, had been identified by the eye-witnesses in the
Court and on his pointation the abductee was recovered---Delay of about 36 hours in lodging the F.I.R. had been
explained and was of no significance---Eye-witnesses had also correctly identified the other accused in the
identification test though without ascribing any role to him, but it would not negate the positive evidence against him
furnished by the eye-witnesses during which they had described his role in great detail---Minor discrepancies could
be ignored in view of the overwhelming evidence on the record regarding abduction of the abductee with no other
purpose than to forcibly recover the outstanduig amount which the complainant allegedly owed to the absconding
accused---Convictions and sentences of accused were upheld in circumstances.
AHMER RAZI VS State
---S. 6---"Terrorism"---Scope---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to the Court of Session---Case against
accused did not fall within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as there was no allegation of threat of any
action as provided under said section---Actions as enumerated under subsection (2) to S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 were offences under Penal Code itself and such offences per se, were not triable by Anti-Terrorism Court---
Such actions would only be cognizable by Anti-Terrorism Court if any of enumerated offences under subsection (2)
of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had any nexus with purpose and object as defined under subsection (1) of S.6,
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Revision application was allowed and impugned order was set aside and case was
transferred to concerned Court of Session for disposal according to law.
ABDUL RAUF VS THE STATE
----S. 401---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Remission of sentence---
Applicant had alleged that due to grant of remission for about more than three years, he had completed sentence by
remaining in jail since January, 2001, but he was not being released by Jail Authorities---Jail Roll of accused,
showed that remissions allowed to applicant till the start of June, 2001 were only ten months and twenty days which
benefit was extended to him---Applicant had yet to serve out three years, three months and twenty seven days as
unexpired sentence---Applicant having failed to place on record any material showing grant of remission more than
what was shown in the Jail Roll, his application being meritless, was dismissed.
226 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

HARCHAND VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--353 ,
---Ss. 324, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Appreciation of evidence---No police officer or
anyone else was injured in the incident and neither empties were recovered from the place of Wardat nor same
were produced in the Court---One of prosecution witnesses, who claimed to be heading the police party involved in
the encounter, had admitted in his cross-examination that when the party reached the place of occurrence, there
was no firing on the spot---Said witness had admitted that police encounter lasted for a short while; that accused
persons (present in the Court) had started shouting that they should not be killed as they were prepared to
surrender and that accused were seen by them as they had raised their hands and their weapons were lying in front
of them---Such statements were sufficient to show that accused had voluntarily surrendered before police party and
there was no question of deterring police party from discharging their duties or causing obstruction of any sort---
Place of occurrence was surrounded by habitations, but no one from private persons was associated to witness the
arrest of accused or the recovery of crime weapon---Neither any encounter had been proved nor there was any
evidence to show that an attempt was made on the police party to commit their murder---Prosecution, in
circumstances had failed to bring home the guilt to accused persons---Judgment of conviction recorded by Special
Judge was devoid of material evidence and was bereft of cogent reasons and was not maintainable and was liable
to be set aside---Conviction could not be sustained merely on basis of surmises---High Court allowing appeal, set
aside impugned judgment and conviction and acquitted accused.
KETNO VS JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, SPECIAL COURT FOR ATA
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--14 ,
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--2 , Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--4 , Juvenile Justice System
Ordinance 2000--5 , Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--6 ,
--Ss.2(b), 4, 5, 6 & 14---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6--Constitution of Pakistan (1973),

Art.199---Constitutional petition--Bifurcation/separation of case of minor accused from adult co-accused--Petitioner
had sought bifurcation/separation of his case from co-accused on the ground that he was minor and could not be
tried jointly with co accused who were adults---Petitioner was examined by a Board of Medical Officers and after
physical, chemical as well as radiological examination it had issued a certificate showing that accused appeared to
be 15 to 17 years of age---Petitioner also produced school leaving certificate showing his age 16 years on date of
alleged incident--Application of petitioner was resisted by complainant on the ground that as the petitioner was
facing trial before Anti-Terrorism Court, provisions of Sindh Children Act, 1955 as well as those of Juvenile Justice
System Ordinance, 2000 were not applicable to him---Validity---Nowhere in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it was
specifically provided that Juvenile Courts constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, having
jurisdiction for the trial of the case of a child who, was sent up under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were devoid of
jurisdiction---Provisions of S.4 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 had shown that Anti-Terrorism Court was
not specified as a Juvenile Court ---Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 had no overriding effect over provisions of Juvenile
Justice System Ordinance, 2000---Juvenile Court had been established in the Province and powers had been
conferred upon Presiding Officers of the Court---Contention of complainant that since petitioner/accused had been
sent up before the Court dealing with Anti-Terrorism cases, he could not be tried by a Juvenile Court, was
misconceived---Constitutional petition was allowed and it was ordered that case of petitioner be separated from
case of co-accused and sent to Juvenile Court having jurisdiction in the matter for trial according to law.
227 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS IBRAR
PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2004 Lah. 726,
----Ss: 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/148/149--Object of promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---To bring an offence within the ambit of the Act, it is essential to examine that the said offence should have
nexus with the object of the Act and offences covered by its Ss.6, 7 & 8---Motive in the present case, though was
shown to be a previous enmity, yet paramount consideration to betaken note of was the cumulative fall out of the
occurrence which had taken place in Mosque, a public place particularly during Jumma prayer where a large
number of people usually assemble to offer prayer, and such circumstance was sufficient to attract the provisions of
S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Principles. [Ibrar v. Safdar Hussain Malik, Judge, A.T.A. Court II, Rawalpindi
and 3 others PLD 2004 Lah. 726 reversed].
THE STATE VS QADIR BAKHSH
----S. 6---Terrorist act---Deceased was a renowned person of the area and after attending a funeral he was coming
to his house, where he was waylaid and ambushed alongwith two persons, which sent a wave of terror in the public
and also sown seeds of a tribal feud---Alleged act clearly fell within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
and the Anti-Terrorism Court had the jurisdiction to try the case.
Sardar MOAZZAM KHAN VS THE STATE
2002 SCMR 908, 2004 PCr.LJ 210, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2003 Lahore 267, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2003 SC
396, PLD 2003 SC 704,
----S. 6---"Terrorist Act"---Application and import---In order to attract the provisions of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997, it is not necessary that the offence, as alleged, had in fact caused terror or insecurity in the society, but it
would adequately attract the provisions of Act if it was likely to strike terror or sense of fear and insecurity in the
society.
TAJ MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE
228 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance 1979--17 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--412 ,
----S.497---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)---Penal Code (XLV
of 1860), S.412--Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Bail---Accused alongwith others had been correctly
picked up and identified as one of the culprits during the identification parade---Identifiers had fully supported the
prosecution version and charged the accused and his accomplices for taking part in the robbery committed by them
on the night of occurrence in the house of the complainant---Accused was stated to be the ring leader of a gang' of
dacoits involved in many cases of similar nature--Criminal act of accused was designed to create a sense of fear or
insecurity in the minds of the general public disturbing even tempo of life and tranquillity of society-
IBRAR VS SAFDAR HUSSAIN MALIK, JUDGE, A.T.A. Court II, RAWALPINDI
PLD 2001 SC 521,
----Ss. 302/324/148/144---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) Ss. 6, 7 & 23-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.
199-Constitutional petition---Transferring case from the Court of Judge, Special Court, Anti Terrorism, to Ordinary
Court---Case initially was lodged under provisions of Penal Code, but occurrence having taken place in Mosque,
D.S.P. (Legal) added S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and case was transferred to Special Court Anti-Terrorism---
Application of accused for transferring case from Court of Special Judge of Anti-Terrorism to Ordinary Court was
dismissed by Special Court---
MUHAMMAD ALI VS THE STATE
----S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7 --- Crime and punishment---Offences under S.302, P.P.C. and
Ss.6/7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, are quite distinct and separate from each other.
ABDUL HAQ VS THE STATE
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F ,
229 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss. 302/324/337-F(ii)/337-F(iii)/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.617---Appreciation of

evidence---Mere fact that complaint was drafted by an Advocate on dictation of the complainant, could not render
the complaint invalid and fact that, the Advocate who had drafted the complaint was Head of one Community, would
not mean that he had attempted to give a twist to facts of the occurrence, so as to give it a colour of sectarianism---
Both accused persons were named in the promptly recorded F.I.R. which was sufficient to exclude possibility of
consultation, premeditation and even of false implication of accused persons--Presence of complainant to offer
fateha on the grave of his brother in the graveyard and also to attend 'Majlis' which was taking place at place of
occurrence, was quite natural---Eye-witness account was furnished by four natural witnesses of occurrence, one of
said witnesses was himself injured and the other witness who was also injured was of the different faith---Testimony
of such witness was very crucial because it could not be believed that he would make a false statement to let off the
culprits who had attempted to kill him and had seriously injured him in the process---Said witness was brother of one
of the deceased and it could not be believed that he would make a false statement against persons with whom he
had no previous enmity---Statements of eyewitnesses were further corroborated by statements of Medical Officers---
Report of Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of weapon of offence allegedly recovered from the accused, was
positive---Overwhelming evidence was on record that accused with fire-arms had indulged in indiscriminate firing on
people present in Majlis on the day of occurrence as a result of which eight persons were killed---Prosecution having
successfully established guilt of accused on all charges, accused were rightly convicted and sentenced---Accused
having been awarded sentence of death under Ss.3021 149, P. P. C. on eight counts, awarding them sentence of
death separately for offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 also on eight counts, however, would not be
justified.
Mst. AZRA BIBI VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--14 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--2 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-C , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6
, Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000--5 ,
----Ss. 6(1)(b), 2(d), 21-C(4)(7)(c) & 14(5) [as amended by Anti-Terrorism (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2002]---
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional
petition---Seven accused armed with fire-arms, described in the F.I.R., overpowered gunmen at a jewellery shop in a
busy street, in the broad-daylight, robbed the owner of the shop of valuable jewellery and a cash of Rs.3,50,000 and
decamped from the spot--- Contentions of the petitioner was that she was a minor and she had to be tried in terms
of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 which stipulated separate trial for a child and that even if the Court
constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had jurisdiction to try the present case it could be tried only by a
Court constituted under amended S.14(5) of the Anti-Terrorism
SHAHID JAMEEL VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
PLD 2004 Lah. 199,
230 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/395/396/412----Application for transfer of case from Anti-
Terrorism Court to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Cases registered against applicant/accused pertained to
dacoity with murders committed only for the purpose of private gains and regarding retention of stolen property---
Offences in question had not peen committed with the `design' or the purpose contemplated by provisions of S.
6(1)(b) or (c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---If the actus reus of an accused was not committed with mens rea
specified in S.6(1)(b) or (c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, then a special Court constituted under the said Act, had no
jurisdiction to try such a case---Requisite mens rea was clearly missing in cases registered against accused so as to
brand the acts attributed to him and his co-accused as `terrorism'--
SHAUKAT ALI VS THE STATE
----Ss. 365-A/302/34/109---Anti-Teirorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 & 6---Revision---Application of accused, who
claimed himself to be a "child" for transfer of his case to a Juvenile Court for trial, was dismissed by the Anti-
Terrorism Court by means of the impugned order---Specific "design" or "purpose" contemplated by the provisions of
S.6(1)(b) or (c) was not discernible from the F.I.R. and the case, thus, was not one of "terrorism" as envisaged by
S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 arid the same .was to be tried by a Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Question of
juvenility of the accused vis-a-vis the forum of his trial, therefore, was irrelevant as the case was now to be sent to a
Court of ordinary jurisdiction and if the accused was a juvenile then such Court had to be a Juvenile Court and no
other Court-
AMIR ZAMAN VS Syed AMER ABBAS
Penal Code 1860--365-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--392 , Pakistan Penal Code
231 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----S. 417(2-A)--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8 & 25(4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/341
/342/353/365/365-A/392/394/412/34---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13--Appeal against acquittal
and revision for enhancement of sentence--Under provisions of subsection (4) of S.25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
only Attorney-General, Deputy Attorney-General, Standing Counsel, an Advocate-General or an Advocate of High
Court or Supreme Court appointed as Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor or a Special Public
Prosecutor, could file an appeal against acquittal within 15 days of the order of acquittal---Right of appeal against
acquittal having been created by a statute, could not be resorted to by implication or by inference---Police constable,
in the present case, in his official capacity had got criminal case registered against the accused who were acquitted
of the charge by Trial Court---Only the State could file appeal against acquittal and complainant being not included
in the category, of officers mentioned in subsection (4) of S.25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, could not file appeal
against acquittal of accused---Words used `any Court' in S.417(2-A), Cr.P.C. were only relevant to the Courts
functioning under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and it would not extend or refer to Special Courts established
under special laws like Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and right of appeal could not be read in the Statute which did not
specifically provide for---By not providing right to appeal against acquittal to private complainant, no fundamental
right had been infringed---Equality of a citizen before law was to be seen under the particular law---Appeal filed
against acquittal and revision for enhancement of punishment, were dismissed being incompetent.
BASHARAT ALI VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-II, GUJRANWALA--
----S. 6 [as substituted by Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of 2001)]---"Terrorism"---Concept---

Currently no definition of `terrorism" is available in the customary international law---"Terror" as a manifestation of
horror, shock or disgust, is known to human society and civilization since times immemorial but "terrorism" as an
'ism' or an articulated pattern of thought and activity, is relatively of a recent origin---" Terrorism" and "terror"---
Distinction---Test to determine whether a particular act is "terrorism" or not is the motivation, object, design or
purpose behind the act and not the consequential effect created by such act---"Terrorism", in this context has to be
understood as a species different and apart from terror, horror, shock, fear, insecurity, panic or disgust created by an
ordinary crime---History of recent "terrorism" in the world and an insight into how the world has understood and tried
to define the same may be a significant help and of critical importance in appreciating the true meanings and import
of the term "terrorism".
Rao MATLOOB HUSSAIN and others VS D. P.O. and others
232 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss. 353, 427, 148, 149, 186 & 506---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 6(2)(m)(n)---Constitution of
Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Constitutional petition---Transfer of the case from ordinary Criminal Court to Anti-
Terrorism Court ---Validity---Accused were having no weapon of any kind in their hands but had used only the
abusive language which could not be termed as a serious one attracting the provisions of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997---Accused, according to the complainant, were provoked when he tried to advise them---All the efforts
stated in the F.I.R. were stated to be an attempt only---No serious coercion or intimidation of a public servant had
occurred at the time of occurrence even according to the contents of the F.I.R.---
GUL SHER and 2 others VS THE STATE
Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , West Pakistan Arms
----Ss. 324/353/365-A/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6 (d)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of
1965), S.13(d)--Appreciation of evidence---No private person was associated to witness the arrest of accused and
to testify about recovery--Na person from the locality .was made Mashir of place of occurrence and no Mashirnama
of place of occurrence was prepared---Parents of allegedly abducted boy were handed over custody of the boy at
the police station---Allegation was of encounter with police, but admittedly neither the empties were secured from
the place of Wardat nor anybody from either side was injured---Absolutely no evidence was to show that accused
had kidnapped the boy---Victim boy neither was produced in Court nor accused were got identified--
NASIR HUSSAIN SHAH VS THE STATE
1997 SCMR 449, 2002 SCMR 908,
-----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.336---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(b)---Bail, refusal of
--Accused had allegedly caused eleven injuries on the person of the student girl by throwing acid on her face while
she was on her way to school---Act of accused, besides causing severe burns on the face of the victim girl, had
disfigured her permanently and must have created fear, insecurity and anguish in the minds of a great section of
public particularly the entire community of girl students and their parents---Case against accused fell within the
ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and was triable by Anti-Terrorism Court---Bail was declined to accused
in circumstances .
MUHAMMAD ARIF VS THE STATE
233 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
----Ss.319/34 & 337-F---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Appreciation of evidence---Nobody had seen the
accused armed with a rifle or firing at the car--Accused had been involved in the case on account of deposit by him
a rifle and short ammunition at the police station which was a corroborative piece of evidence and by itself was not
sufficient to connect him with the commission of the offence---Specific plea taken by accused that at the time of
incident he was neither having the rifle nor had fired at the deceased or the injured witness, but was driving .the
mobile van, was fully supported by .the prosecution's own witness who was a senior police officer and heading the
police party---Two theories being available on record, the one favouring the accused was to be accepted--Accused
was acquitted in circumstances.
ABDUL QAYYUM and others---Appellants VS THE STATE---Respondent
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--SCHEDULE , Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--537 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--396 , West
----S.396/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(d) & 12 and Sched. cl.2(a)(iii) & cl.2(c)---West Pakistan
Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.537--Appreciation of evidence---
Dacoity with murder---Two accused were waiting in the jeep in which the culprits had travelled and the other three
accused had carried the ground operation, as such the act of dacoity having been committed by five accused
conjointly, S.396, P.P.C. was attracted---Offence punishable under S.396, P.P.C. i.e., murder committed during
dacoity, having been fully demonstrated under c1.2(a)(iii) of the Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, on the day of
occurrence, S.396, P.P.C. was not needed to be included in clause 2(c) of the said Schedule and its absence
therefrom was immaterial---Clause 2(a)(iii) of the Schedule being existent at the relevant time, jurisdiction of the
Anti-Terrorism Court was not questionable on the ground that S.396, P.P.C. was not mentioned in the Schedule---
AMAN KHAN VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance
----Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)---Offence of Zina (Enforcement Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII
of 1997), S.6(c)---Appreciation of evidence---Flat from where the dead body of the deceased girl was recovered was
in the exclusive possession of the accused---Recovery of the blood-stained dagger and blood-stained clothes on the
pointation of the accused was established---Merely because the said articles were recovered in the presence of the
police witnesses was not sufficient to disbelieve the recovery---Chemical report in respect of the aforesaid articles
was in positive---Said recovery was not disproved by the defence---Guilt of the accused with regard to the murder of
the girl was proved on record---Prosecution had neither set up any motive for the occurrence nor had proved it and
the same was shrouded in mystery---Conviction of accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. was altered to S.302(c), P.P.C. in
circumstances and his sentence of imprisonment for life was reduced to 10 years' R.I.
234 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Dr. Syed MUHAMMAD KHALID MOIN VS THE STATE
1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
----S. 365-A/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(c) & 7(ii)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of
1965), S.13(d)--Appreciation of evidence ---Abductees had fully supported the prosecution case giving details of the
incident from the time of their abduction till their release who had seen the accused during their abduction and
captivity---Accused were also identified in the identification test before the Magistrate---Bank employees had further
identified the accused who had encashed the cheques---Prosecution witnesses had no reason for false implication
of accused in the crime and their evidence inspired confidence---Circumstantial evidence of incriminating recoveries
from the accused had also connected them with the commission of the offence---
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance 1979--10 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--377 ,
----Ss. 302(b) & 377---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10---Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), S.6(c)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to accused to
reappraise the prosecution evidence as conviction of accused was based on an uncorroborated extra-judicial
confession.
NAEEM AKHTAR VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 6 & 7---"Terrorism" and "terrorist act"---Connotation---Fright, dread or an
apprehension in the mind of a person induced by a horrible act of a person or causing fear and terror to the people
is "terrorism" and if an act done by a person is a source of terror in any section of people which may cause damage
to life or property of an individual is a "terrorist act" and is an offence as defined in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997, and punishable under S.7 of the said Act.
STATE VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ
235 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 ,
----S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Case
remanded by High Court for retrial before an ordinary Court---Validity---High Court had set aside the judgment of the
Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court and remanded the case for retrial to an ordinary Court on the ground that the
murder had taken place at a deserted place out of personal enmity which had no nexus with Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---For bringing the case within the ambit of the said Act it is not necessary that the commission
of murder must have created panic and terror among the people---Courts have only to see whether the terrorist act
was such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the people or any
section of the society---Such act even was not required to have taken place within the view of general public so as
to bring it within the compass of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---What had to be seen was the psychological impact
created upon the minds of the people---Where an act having taken place in a barbaric and gruesome manner had
created fear and insecurity, it would certainly come within the purview of the said Act---Murder in the present case
was committed by the accused by sprinkling petrol on the person of the deceased and also by firing at him with his
kalashnikov---Body of the deceased was completely charred and the bones of his both hands and forearms were
burnt---Death of the deceased had occurred apart from the fire-arm injury due to intense pain and difficult
breathing---Charred body of the deceased when brought for funeral rites in the locality of his residence would have
certainly caused shock, fear and insecurity among the people of the vicinity on seeing the barbaric and callous
manner in which the human body had been mutilated---Additionally, trial in the case had resulted in the conviction of
accused by the Special Court and the impugned order had been passed in appeal by High Court---Special Court
was presided over by a Sessions Judge
ABDUL GHAFOOR BHATTI VS MUHAMMAD SALEEM
1973--185 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code
----Ss.23, 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A & 395/109--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) &
199---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary Court for trial---Validity---Courts had to see impact of
acts, which miscreants had perpetrated---Two minors had been abducted for ransom by miscreants---Such-like act
had certainly got tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in minds of people or any section of society---
Psychological effect created upon minds of people would be the guiding feature so as to see whether act
complained of had got nexus with Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Not necessary that such act must have
created insecurity---Courts have to see only the tendency as to whether nature of such act would create sense of
insecurity---Abduction of minors at gun point would create terror amongst reasonable and prudent persons of
society--Supreme Court accepted appeal and entrusted such case to Anti Terrorism Court for decision.
Sh. MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--2-B , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
----Ss. 302(a) & 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2-.B, 6(b), 7 & 8---Condition precedent for
applicability of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
236 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

RASAB KHAN VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Offence of Zina
(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--12 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
----Ss. 302(b) & 377---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 12---Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Retracted extra-judicial confession---
Accused was convicted for committing murder of two minors and sodomy with them and the only evidence against
the accused was his retracted extra-judicial confession---Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to
consider as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case as established on the record, conviction could be
based on extra-judicial confession.

Mst. NAJAM-UN-NISA VS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER ANTI-TERRORISM ACT
1973--185 ,
----Ss. 6, 12 & 23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-- Terrorist act---Jurisdiction of Special Court under
S.12 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997---Determination---Principles---Accused persons were involved in murder of seven
persons in a house at night time-- Application for transfer of the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction was
declined by Special Court as well as High Court---Validity---Venue of commission of a crime; the tinge of occurrence
the motive which had led to the commission of a crime and the fact whether the said crime had or had not been
witnessed public at large are not the only factors determining the issue whether a case did or did not fall within the
parameters of Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997---Crucial question for determination is whether the 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---
Crime committed even in a remote corner does not remain unnoticed in the area in which it is committed or even in
the country on account of the print and electronic media---Seven persons being butchered in a house at night was
not the kind of occurrence which would not create terror and horror in the people or any section of the people---No
factual or legal infirmity existed in the orders passed by the Special Judge or the order passed by the High Court
whereby the case was declined to be transferred to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction--Leave to appeal was refused.
AMANULLAH VS THE STATE
237 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss. 7(b) & 6---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392---Jurisdiction of Special Court---Validity---Case against accused
related to snatching of motorbike which offence, prima facie, was punishable under the provisions of Offences
Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979---Mere asking the complainant to leave his motorcycle
and run away could hardly create any sense of fear and insecurity in the public---Vague allegation about show of
fire-arms had been levelled by the complainant in the report---Prosecution had attributed a single fire to one of the
accused while the complainant was running away who had even not offered any resistance to compel the accused
to open tire---No crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence--Manner in which the incident had
allegedly taken place, confessional statement of one accused, selling of liquor by the complainant at the place of
occurrence, finding of stolen property by the Excise Constable and other circumstances of the case, did not bring
the case within the purview of S.6 or the Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Offence committed by the
accused had no nexus with the object of the said Act---Special Court, therefore, could not take cognizance of the
case---Cases of vehicle snatching and criminal trespass (illegal Qabza) after the promulgation of Anti-Terrorism
(Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of 2001) were not covered by Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the same were not
triable by Anti-Terrorism Court-- -Impugned judgment passed by Special Court was consequently set aside and the
case was sent to Sessions Court for adjudication in accordance with law.
QAISER KHAN VS THE STATE
PLD 1992 Lah. 99,
----Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/34---Appreciation of evidence---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism

Court---Additional Sessions Judge after framing charge against accused under S.324/34 transferred case to Anti
terrorism Court without giving any reason---Transferee Court took cognizance of the case without bothering to
examine as to whether offence as alleged in the case had any nexus with terrorism or with the object of Anti
Terrorism Act, 1997---Assumption of jurisdiction in the matter by said Special Court was not justified as prima facie,
case did not involve element of terrorism and had no nexus with object of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as neither the
case had been registered under S.7(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 nor investigation was carried out under
provisions of said Act nor challan was submitted to said Court by prosecution---Such was a simple case under
S.324, P.P.C. which offence was not committed in a manner which struck terror or created a sense of fear and
insecurity in the people or in a section of people except in the ordinary sense of insecurity created at the time of
commission of every crime ---Punishment awarded by Judge Anti Terrorism Court to accused, was not according to
law and principles of Islamic dispensation of criminal justice---Judgment of Special Court was set aside and case
was remanded to Special Judge with direction to send the same to Court of Additional Sessions Judge who would
decide case strictly accordance with law.
MUHAMMAD HANIF VS THE STATE
PLD 2003 SC 224,
238 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss. 378/486/452/342/411/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7(c)---Appreciation of evidence---

Allegation against accused persons was that they entered the house of complainant duly armed with daggers and
took valuable articles from house of complainant---Accused had contended that in circumstances it was purely a
case of robbery by commission of lurking house-trespass falling under relevant sections of P.P.C. and not a case
falling under any clause of S.6(2) or any other provision of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity---Section 6(2)(c) of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 speaks of "involves grievous damage to property"---Damage to property was quite a
distinct act from dishonestly/forcibly taking away property out of possession of owner/possessor---In former case
(damage to property), damage was done to property, whether movable or immovable, whether partially or totally,
without taking possession of the property while in latter case (dishonestly/forcibly taking away property out of
possession of owner), movable property vide definition of theft contained in S.378, P.P.C., was dishonestly taking
away of possession of any person without damage to property---Case of accused, in. circumstances, would not fall
within provision of S.6(2)(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---In order to bring the case within Jurisdiction of Special
Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be necessary that offence must fall in any of the
provisions of cls. (a) to (n) of subsection (2) or (3) of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and must fulfil one of the
conditions laid down in cl. (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---An act would amount to
terrorism only where use or threat of action was designed to coerce and intimidate the Government or the public or
a section of the public or community or sect or creating a sense of fear or insecurity in society or same was made for
the purpose of advancing a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause---In the present case though one of the conditions
laid down in S.6(1)(b) & (c) namely "by creating a sense of insecurity in the society" was available, but offence
against accused did not fall in any of cls.(a) to (n) of subsection (2) of S.6 or within provisions of subsection (3) of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court, in circumstances, had no jurisdiction to try the accused persons--
Conviction and sentences of accused persons and acquittal of co-accused, were set aside and case was remanded
to the Sessions Judge who would conduct trial of accused persons de novo in accordance with law.
MIR ZAMAN VS ZUBAIR
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--
TERM , Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--17 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--397 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--412 ,
239 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----S.17(3)(4)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.397/412
/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 12, 19, 23, 25 & 28---Appreciation of evidence---Transfer of case
to Anti-Terrorism Court ---Challan of case was filed in the Court of Special Judge constituted under Suppression of
Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, but later on when Anti-Terrorism Court was established and constituted in the Province,
case was transferred to Anti-Terrorism Court---Anti-Terrorism Court could try scheduled offences, but none of the
offences against accused persons was scheduled offence---Anti-Terrorism Court to which case was transferred,
though could not try the case against accused, but as under provisions of S.19, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Anti-
Terrorism Court could directly take cognizance of case, once file was sent to it and it was of the opinion that offence
committed by accused fell within purview of S.6 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and the moment such opinion was
formulated, offence would become one falling within jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court on the basis of S.12 of the
said Act---Cognizance taken by Anti Terrorism Court on receipt of file from Special Court constituted under
Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 would not be illegal--Eleven prosecution witnesses were examined by
Judge Special Court and on the basis of offences for which charge was framed, it was a Court of competent
jurisdiction because at the relevant time no Anti-Terrorism Court was established in the Province---Cognizance, in
circumstances, was rightly taken and so was charge framed and evidence recorded--Evidence of eleven witnesses
recorded by Special Court of competent jurisdiction on basis of charge framed by it, would be legal evidence and
Anti-Terrorism Court having taken cognizance, though at later stage, would be justified to proceed from the stage. it
took cognizance and could act on evidence already recorded---As offences for which accused were charged under
Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, were not scheduled offences, but by virtue of definition
as contained in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 such acts had become act of'terrorism, it was incumbent upon Anti-
Terrorism Court to have refrained charge under Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act; 1997---Appeals were accepted and
conviction and sentence recorded on basis of charge framed by Special Court and conviction and sentence
recorded for such offences which were not specifically mentioned in Schedule to Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, were set
aside and case was remanded to decide afresh after refraining charge and affording parties opportunity of hearing.
FAQIR HUSSAIN VS ASAD ALI KHAN
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.320, 324, 459, 148 & 149--Anti-Terrorism Act. (XVII of 1997), Ss.6(a)(b) &
7---Bail, grant of--Principles---Bail not to be refused as a punishment merely on the allegation that the accused had
committed offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless reasonable grounds appeared to exist to
disclose his complicity.
MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--38 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--39-A , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitution of Pakistan
1973--199 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A , Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act 1975--2 ,
Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act 1975--SCHEDULE ,
240 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----S. 365-A---Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (X of 1975), S.2 & Sched--Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 38 & 39-B [as inserted by Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of 2001)]---
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Case against accused fell within the definition of
"terrorism" as envisaged in cls.(a) & (e) of subsection (2) of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was triable by
the Anti-Terrorism Court---Accused if proved guilty would be liable to punishment as provided in law, at the time
when the offence was committed---Offence having been committed before the commencement of the Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, case against accused was ordered to be transferred from Sessions Court to Anti-Terrorism Court for trial
within the meaning of S.38 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.
TAJ MUHAMMAD VS JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--2 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Terrorism--TERM ,
----Ss. 6 & 2---"Terrorism"---Definition---Not every disruption of or interference with the duties of a public servant or
every coercion, intimidation or violence against a public servant which attracts the definition of "terrorism" contained
in S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Provisions of S.6(2)(1), (m) and (n) of the said Act speak of "serious interference";
"serious disruption": "serious coercion or intimidation" or "serious violence" against a public servant---Word "serious"
has been defined by S.2(w) of the said Act to mean "dangerous to life or property "---Where facts of the case
emerging during the investigation, showed that apparently nothing had been done by the accused which could be
termed as dangerous to life or property, application of provisions of S.6(2)(1), (m) & (n) to the case appeared to be
quite suspect---Alleged interference with or disruption of the duty of the public servants involved in the present case
or coercion or intimidation of or violence against such public servants being not "serious" enough to attract the
definition of "terrorism" as contained in S.6 of the Act, Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had no
jurisdiction to try the case.
MAZHAR VS THE STATE
----Ss. 302/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7--Criminal Procedure Code (V - of 1898),
S.439---Revision petition -- Jursidiciton of Trial Court, determination of ---Co-accused had earlier been tried by a
Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, at the time when such a Court used to have
jurisdiction with reference to certain scheduled offences, but subsequently the said Act was amended and through
an amendment in its S.6 jurisdiction of the Special Court was made determinable not with reference to any schedule
of offences but with reference to the mens rea and the actus reus specified in the amended S.6-- Acts allegedly
committed by the accused according to the F.I.R. had no intention or mens rea as specified in the said amended
provisions---Offences had been committed by the accused in the background of personal enmity between the
parties and to take private revenge---Victims in the case had not been assaulted in their capacity as public servants
or with an intention to deter them from performance of their official duties---Special Court constituted under the Anti-
Terrorism Art, 1997, for all the aforesaid reasons had no jurisdiction to try the accused and they had been rightly
referred to a regular Court for trial---Impugned order was not open to any legitimate exception---Revision petition
was dismissed accordingly.
241 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

AZHAR HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
----Ss. 365-A/114, 302(b)/34 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7(a)/6(2)(a) & 7(b)---Appreciation of
evidence---Persons before whom the accused had allegedly made extra-judicial confessions had no authority or
influence whatsoever to help the accused in any manner either before the complainant party or before the police---
Said witnesses did not apprehend or tried to apprehend the accused after they had made extra-judicial confessions
and even informed the police and the complainant party about the same after many days when they met the said
persons by chance---Conduct of the witnesses in this regard had reduced the evidentiary value of their depositions
to nothing and the prosecution evidence regarding the extra judicial confession was not worthy of any credence---
Handwritings in the samples and in, the compared documents were not found to be in the same hand, even
otherwise this piece of evidence having not been put to accused during his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.
could not be considered against him---Recoveries effected in the case from the accused were practically of no
consequence as the same had neither linked them in any manner with the commission of the offence nor were of
any corroborative value---Prosecution evidence that the sniffing dogs after having smelled the dead body of the
deceased had grappled with the accused standing in the line of suspects was not based on true facts particularly
when the witness testifying about the role of the dogs had failed to identify the accused in the Court picked up by the
said dogs ---Medical evidence by its nature and character could not identify the accused in a case of unseen
occurrence and all other pieces of prosecution evidence in the case having been disbelieved, convictions of
accused could not be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone ---Accused were acquitted in circumstances.
TAHIR HUSSAIN VS KHALIQ DAR
----Ss.6, 7 & 8---Compounding of scheduled offence---Cases triable by Courts under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 must
have nexus with Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the said Act---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 being a Special Law, private complainant or
legal heirs of deceased had no right to compound `scheduled offences' as said offences were mainly against the
State 'and not against individuals---Offences could not be compounded automatically by legal heirs, but it was
always through the Court and Court could decline/withhold the permission to compromise the offence ' by legal heirs
of the victim.
MUHAMMAD ARIF VS THE STATE
1992 SCMR 1617, 1993 SCMR 1608, 1999 SCMR 1367,
242 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Code 1860--319 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--453 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13-D ,
----Ss. 302/324/319/337(F)/353/392/411/453/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---West Pakistan Arms

Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-D---Appreciation of evidence--Case of prosecution was that a large number of police
officials were present at the place of incident in order to apprehend accused persons who firstly, were found inside a
house, subsequently shifted to house of complainant and thereafter the accused were seen firing from the car at the
police and then police also started firing at the accused--Prosecution witnesses gave said details, but none had
deposed that they had seen the co accused armed with rifle or firing from the car---Involvement of co-accused in the
case had been made on the ground that he had deposited short ammunition at police station ---Prosecution
evidence showed that it could only be gathered that rifle of co accused was used in commission of crime, but no
evidence was on record to show that co accused was seen holding said rifle or firing from the car---Rifle and short
ammunition deposited by co-accused at police station, in circumstances, was only a corroborative piece of evidence
and not a substantive piece of evidence and such evidence by itself was not enough to connect co-accused with
commission of crime---Prosecution, in circumstances, had failed to prove case against the co-accused---Conviction
and sentences recorded against said co-accused by trial Court were set aside---Evidence on record had fully proved
that main accused alongwith other accused persons entered into the house of complainant and on gun point put
complainant in car and forced him to drive the same and to help them in escaping from scene of incident---Said
main accused was correctly picked out in identification parade---All pieces of evidence having connected main
accused with the commission of crime, he was rightly convicted and sentenced---In absence of any mitigating
circumstances, sentence awarded to main accused could not be reduced---Prosecution had also proved case under
S.13-D of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 against main accused and one of his co-accused---Said main
accused and his co-accused had rightly been convicted and sentenced.
GHULAM WARIS VS THE STATE
1997 PCr.LJ 1079, PLD 1987 FSC 11, PLD 1995 SC 1,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Offence of Zina
(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--10 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 ,
243 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss.302(a)/324--- Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10 --- Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(c) & 7(ii)---Appreciation of evidence---Statement of sole prosecution witness who claimed to
be eye-witness of the occurrence showed that there were four accused persons, but it was not known as'to who was
responsible for causing murder of the deceased and at what point of time deceased had -received the fire-arm
injuries-Prosecution witness, in circumstances could not be said to be eye-witness of the incident--Prosecution tried
to connect accused with the offence of murder through recovery of a pen pistol on pointation of accused, but on
empty bullet of any fire-arm weapon was secured from the place of Wardat---Even Mushirnama of Wardat was silent
with regard to recovery of empty bullet from the said place---Accused, in circumstances, could not be connected
with commission of offence of murder through recovery of pen-pistol ---Trial Court had convicted accused for murder
of deceased on presumption that when accused was found guilty of Zina-bil-Jabr with the complainant, accused was
also found to have committed murder of the deceased---Conviction on capital charge could be based'upon
substantive evidence and could not be based on merely presumption and surmises---For proving charge against
accused under S.302(a), P. P. C., evidence as required under S. 304, P. P. C., was to be led, but same had not been
done in the case of accused--Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court under S. 302 (a), P. P. C.
without cogent, substantive and reliable evidence, was not justified and was set aside---Injury on person of
prosecution witness was found to be "Ghair Jaifah Badiha" and said witness in her entire statement had not
assigned the part of causing the said injury to the accused, but co accused had caused said injury on her--
Ingredients of S.324, P. P. C. being not attracted from facts of case, accused could not be convicted and sentenced
under S.324, P. P. C.---Victim/prosecution witness had categorically implicated accused with commission of rape
with her and her statement was fully supported and ,corroborated by medical evidence--Prosecution, however, could
not prove charge of Zina-bil-Jabr against accused as it had not been, proved that force was applied by accused
before or during course of rape--Accused, in circumstances, had committed offence of Zina as defined under S.4 of
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 punishable under S.10(2) of said Ordinance read with
S.7(ii) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and was liable to be convicted and sentenced according to the said provisions of
law---Conviction and sentence of accused under Ss. 302 (a) & 324, P. P. C. were set aside, whereas his conviction
under S.10(4) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with S. 6(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997, was converted to S.10(2) of said Ordinance read with S.7(ii) of said Act, and he was sentenced accordingly.
AHMED SHAH VS THE STATE
PLD 1998 SC 1445,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--SCHEDULE ,
----Ss.6, 7, 8 & Sched.---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Courts---Where offences mentioned in the Schedule of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 had nexus with the object mentioned in Ss.6, 7 & 8 of said Act---Anti-Terrorism Courts would
have jurisdiction to try the case---If an offender with intention to strike terror in the people or in a section of people
would commit scheduled offence then only he would be subject to jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court.
MUHAMMAD ADNAN VS THE STATE
1975 PCr.LJ 453, 1975 PCr.LJ 936, 1994 PCr.LJ 62, 1996 MLD 782, PLD 1983 FSC 204, PLD 1988 FSC 119,
244 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance
1979--10 ,
----Ss. 10(4) & 10(2)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) Ss. 6 (c) & 7(ii)--Appreciation of evidence---Reduction in
sentence---Age of the victim girl according to medical evidence was between 15 and 16 years, but the possibility of
her being the age of 16 years or above could not be ruled out and even otherwise she having already attained
puberty was an adult within the meaning of S.2(a) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance,
1979--No marks of violence were found on the body of the victim girl and according to medical evidence she was
already used to sexual intercourse and was not a virgin at the time of incident---Statement of the victim with regard
to sexual intercourse committed with her by the accused was fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the
Chemical Examiner's report showing her clothes and the Shalwar of the accused being stained with semen which
was enough to convict the accused---Since the victim did not resist the action of the accused and she remained a
passive partner like a consenting party, it was not a case of Zina-bil-Jabr--- Conviction of accused under S.10(4) of
the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was consequently set aside and instead they were
convicted under S.10(2) of the said Ordinance read with Ss. 6(c) & 7(ii) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and their
sentences were substantially reduced accordingly.
ATA-UR-REHMAN VS THE STATE
1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--394 , Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance
1991--7 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13-D ,
----Ss. 353/394/34---Surrender of Illicit Arms Act (XXI of 1991), S.7--West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13-D --- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant who was examined
on point of snatching of his motorcycle did not state anything with regard to exchange of fire-arm shots between
Police and the accused as complainant did not follow the accused, but remained at the place where information of
the incident was narrated to the Police--Evidence of complainant, in circumstances, was immaterial with regard to
recovery of pistol from possession of the accused---Ocular testimony was in conflict with medical evidence---
Statement of Doctor made by him on Oath with regard to bringing of the injured accused in the hospital, was
accepted despite there was no clarification in examination-in-chief or re-examination about time mentioned by
Doctor--No explanation was forthcoming from the side of prosecution as to where remained the accused in between
alleged incident and their production before Medical Officer---Case of prosecution was that the accused were on
their motorcycles when Police Officials were chasing them on their motorcycles; as both accused were driving their
motorcycles in high speed when they were being chased by Police, it was highly improbable rather difficult for the
accused to fire from their pistols on Police party from motorcycle running at such high speed---Prosecution had
failed to explain discrepancies in evidence---Case of prosecution being highly doubtful, benefit of doubt was to be
given to the accused---Conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court, were set aside, in
circumstances.
THE STATE VS AZEEM SHAKIR alias TARA
245 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--SCHEDULE , Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--417 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan
----Ss. 7(iii), 6(d), Sched., Items (1), (4) & 25(4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.386/324/353/34---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(1)---Appeal against acquittal---Eye-witnesses including the complainant had
fully supported the prosecution case at the trial in respect of charging. "Bhatta" against the accused giving the same
details of the incident as disclosed in the F.I.R.---Ocular testimony could not be discredited in cross-examination---
Accused had admitted his presence at the scene of incident and the receipt of injuries by him at the hands of police
taking a different stand which stood falsified by the material available on record---Trial Court had also believed the
statements of eyewitnesses on the point of charging "Bhatta", but had wrongly concluded that attempt of charging
"Bhatta" was not covered by S.6(d) of the AntiTerrorism Act, 1997---Offence of charging "Bhatta" as defined in
S.6(d) of the said Act was punishable under S.7(iii) and a perusal of those provisions together with Items Nos.(1)
and (4) of the schedule of offences appended to the said Act would show that the attempt of charging "Bhatta" was
a scheduled offence triable by the Anti-Terrorists Court--Accused was consequently convicted under S.7(iii) of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for having made an attempt of charging "Bhatta" and sentenced to undergo three
years'R.I. with a tine of Rs.20,000 and benefit of S.382-B. Cr.P.C. and his acquittal by Trial Court on the said charge
was set aside---Acquittal of accused under Ss.386/324/353/34, P.P.C. was, however, maintained as the same was
based on the appraisal of evidence by the Trial Court in accordance with the settled principles of criminal
administration of justice---Appeal against acquittal was partly allowed accordingly.
IMAM BUX alias MAMA alias AKHTAR VS THE STATE
1860--34 ,
----S. 392/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(d) & 7(iii)-Appreciation of evidence---Ocular testimony was
unanimous on each and every aspect of the case and the same was not discredited in cross-examination---Accused
had been correctly picked up by the eye-witnesses in the identification parade---Vehicle snatched by the accused
from the complainant had been recovered from their possession---Eye-witnesses were natural witnesses whose
presence at the place of incident was not doubtful which was not even challenged by the accused and they hart no
cause or motive to falsely implicate the accused---Vehicle had been snatched by the accused from the complainant
on pistol point by putting him under fear of instant death or instant hurt which was punishable under S.392, P.P.C. up
to ten years'R.I. whereas the offence of vehicle snatching defined under S.6(d) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was
punishable under S.17(iii) of the said Act up to seven years'R.I.---Under the law when a matter was covered by
general law as well as by special law then the provisions of special law would prevail and thus the provisions of
S.7(iii) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, would prevail over S.392, P.P.C.---In consequence the appeal of accused
was dismissed with the exception that their sentence of imprisonment was reduced from 10 years'R.I. each to 7
years'R.I. each.
GHULAM NABI VS THE STATE
246 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----S. 10(3)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7--Appreciation of evidence---Appellant was neither named
in the F.I.R. nor was real offender---Station House Officer of the police station had given explanation in challan that
appellant was real offender, bus complainant at the time of lodging F.I.R. had by mistake given the name of his
brother instead of the appellant---Father's name and caste of brother of appellant as given in the challan were
different from that of appellant---Two persons having different castes could not be brothers inter se---False
implication of accused by substituting his name for real offender was very much apparent---Police official during trial
had not stated even a single word about such mistake---False implication of appellant in case by the police official
was beyond doubt---Appellant had throughout remained un-represented as he being a poor person was not able to
afford an Advocate---Trial Court was duty bound to come to the rescue of appellant, who had been victimized at the
hands of police and local Zamindar---Trial Court had not taken trouble of going through contents of challan,
otherwise, it would have clarified position from witnesses---Trial Court had acted in an imprudent manner and
proceeded to convict an innocent person without his guilt being established beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis
of concocted version supported by surmises, but not substantiated by evidence---High Court warned the trial Judge
to be careful in future and refrain from deciding matters on whims of prosecution---Conviction and sentence
awarded to appellant by Trial Court was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 6 & 39-C(2)(e) (as amended by Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of
2001)]---Cases relating to vehicle-snatching and criminal trespass (illegal Qabza)---Transfer of cases to Court of
Session--Cases of vehicle snatching and criminal trespass (illegal Qabza) after amendment made in Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 by Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 having been made triable by Courts of Session or such
other Court of competent jurisdiction, such cases pending in Anti-Terrorism Court or Special Court were ordered to
be transferred .o respective Sessions Courts for further proceedings in accordance with law.
THE STATE VS MUHAMMAD UMAR alias CHOTOO
1898--439 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 ,
247 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

------Ss. 302/324---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 19(10) & 25(4)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), Ss.417, 439 & 561-A---Acquittal of accused tried in absentia---Validity---Prosecution itself had prayed Anti-
Terrorism Court to try accused in absentia, which had tried him accordingly with law governing trial before Anti-
Terrorism Court---Not open to prosecution to contend now that Trial Court ought to have separated the case of
accused from other arrested accused and ought not have framed charge against him and tried him in absentia as no
evidence was available against him---Absconding accused could be tried in absentia by Anti-Terrorism Court under
S.19(10) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Prosecution itself had not produced any material before Trial Court warranting
conviction of accused, thus, his acquittal was fully justified---Judgment of acquittal was not open to exception for
simple reason that memo. of appeal itself contained that prosecution had not been able to collect any material
against accused and there, was no evidence whatsoever connecting him with offence for which he had been
challenged to face trial---High Court dismissed appeal in limine.
GHAZI KHAN VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 6(d), 7-A & 39-B(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392---West Pakistan Arms
Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-D---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.6-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.264---Jurisdiction of Trial Court---Validity- -Amendment in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, by Ordinance XXXIX of
2001 was under sub-Constitutional legislation, therefore, Art.264 of the Constitution (1973) was not applicable, but
S.6-A of the General Clauses Act would be applicable---After the promulgation of the said Ordinance on 14-8-2001
the Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the cases of vehicle-snatching---Offence under S.13-D of the West
Pakistan Ordinance, 1965, was also triable alongwith the offence of vehicle-snatching as provided under the
Schedule appended to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but after the said amendment such offence could not be tried
by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Impugned judgments were consequently set aside being without jurisdiction and the
cases were remanded to Trial Court with the direction to send the same to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter.
ZIA ULLAH VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORIST COURT, FAISALABAD
PLD 2001 SC 521,
248 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----S.6 [as substituted by Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of 2001)) &
S.23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3.) &
199---Constitutional petition before High Court---Transfer of case to regular Court---Murder of Advocate in Court
vicinity and injuring Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police with firearms---Special Court rejected transfer application of
accused, but High Court accepted their Constitutional petition and withdrew the case from Special Court and
transferred the same to Sessions Judge---Validity---Alleged murder of Advocate in Court vicinity, who was in his
robe, had been committed in a wanton, reckless and brutal manner, and one Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police had
been injured by means of the fire-arms---Deceased Advocate was on his way to Court to conduct trial of a murder
case, while Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was going to get his statement recorded in a criminal case---
Occurrence was the result of indiscriminate firing causing sensation and wave of panic, which amounted to sense of
insecurity not only amongst a section of public, but community of Advocates as well---Gravity of the offence could
not be diminished or minimized merely on the ground that alleged occurrence had not taken place exactly within the
Court premises--Examination of provisions of S.6(i)(b), (2)(a)(m)(n) would render irresistible conclusion that alleged
occurrence fell within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction by filing
Constitutional petition by accused after recording of statements of six witnesses in the case demonstrated
propensity to get the trial prolonged for reasons best known to them---Contents of F.I.R. had neither been read
properly nor understood in its true perspective, which had resulted in serious miscarriage of justice on the one hand
and had protracted the trial on the other without any fault of the affected party---Impugned order could not be termed
as speaking one, but was perfunctory having been passed in a cursory manner by ignoring the objects and reasons
for the enactment of Anti-Terrorism Act. 1997---High Court had not taken into consideration previous orders passed
in this regard by High Court, which had resulted in confusion and serious miscarriage of justice---Supreme Court
converted the petition into appeal and accepted the same and set aside the impugned order.
MUHAMMAD AMIN VS THE STATE
----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 398---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.185(3)---Defence version was not supported by any direct or circumstantial evidence to justify its plausibility---
Arrest of the accused at the spot with weapon of offence (pistol) and his admission that the deceased had sustained
injuries in the occurrence at his hand had provided a strong corroboration to the ocular account for proving charge
against him---Manner in which the accused while committing robbery in the house of the complainant took the life of
the deceased and caused fire-arm injuries to the prosecution witness in the street in broad daylight had squarely
brought the case within the ambit of "terrorism" in terms of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---No sanctity could be
attached to the school leaving certificate produced by accused in the High Court as no plea of his minority was
taken at the trial and no evidence was produced in this behalf---Age of accused in the police file as well as in the
judicial record was recorded more than 25 years at the time of occurrence and thus, he was not in his extreme youth
at that time---No mitigation element in. favour of accused for lesser punishment was available on record--Offence of
terrorism" punishable under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, being an independent offence, .separate sentence
both under S.302(b), P.P.C. and under S.7 of the said Act for committing such offences was quite legal---Leave to
appeal was refused by Supreme Court to the accused in circumstances.
249 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

RAHEELA NASREEN VS STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----S. 6(b)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/201 /34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Arts. 199 & 185(3)---Constitutional petition before High Court---Petitioner was charged for murder of her husband (a
serving Army Officer) with connivance of his Batman ---Challan was submitted before Additional Sessions Judge,
from where the same was transferred to Anti-Terrorism Court for trial---High Court dismissed Constitutional petition
filed by petitioner against transfer order on the ground that if a Batman being a trusted person employed by an Army
Officer murders his master in connivance with master's wife, the incident was likely to strike "terror" leading to
feeling of "insecurity" amongst Army Officers within the meaning of S. 6(b) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Contention
of petitioner was that none of the members of Armed Forces made any statement that alleged act had created either
feeling of insecurity or was likely to strike terror--Validity---Such contention was wholly fallacious---For determination
of question, whether a particular act fell within the ambit of any of the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it was
not necessary to record evidence of witnesses to establish that said act had, in fact, created terror or feeling of
insecurity---Question of applicability of the provisions of the Act had to be decided by applying mind to the facts
alleged in F.I.R. and other attending circumstances---According to S.6(b) of the Act, it was not necessary that
alleged offence had in fact caused terror, rather its requirement would be adequately satisfied, if the same was likely
to strike terror or sense of fear and insecurity in the people ---Reasonings of High Court were based on relevant
consideration having logical nexus with the relevant law and did not suffer from any legal infirmity---Supreme Court
refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition in circumstances.
GULZAR AHMAD VS STATE
----Ss.302, 364-A, 377 & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7(1)---Appraisal of evidence---Prosecution
had collected trustworthy and reliable evidence, and all its witnesses had fully supported the case--Evidence of
prosecution witness (taxi driver, whose taxi had been hired by the accused) was of unimpeachable character, who
had given all necessary details showing the manner of occurrence and taking of deceased in his taxi---No previous
enmity or ill-will existed between prosecution witnesses and accued to falsely implicate him in the case ---Accuased
had subjected male child to sodomy before murder---Evidence of prosecution witnesses, recovery of dead bodies at
pointation of accused and his extra judicial confession coupled with medical evidence had established his guilt---
High Court had dismissed appeal of accused with sound and cogent reasons---Accused had committed brutal and
cruel murders of two innocent minor children, he did not deserve any leniency---Capital punishment had rightly been
awarded by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court---Convictions and sentences of accused were upheld in
circumstances.
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ VS MUHAMMAD ASHIQ
250 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----S. 6(1)---Terrorist act---Criterion to determine---Where a criminal act was designed to
create a sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the general public disturbing even tempo of life and tranquillity of
the society, the same may be treated to be a terrorist act---Principles.
THE STATE VS AHMED ZAMAN KHAN
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 6 & 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss.3 & 4---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
S.324---Alleged telephone call made by the accused prior to the occurrence had been admitted by the accused in
his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Said telephone call had been received by the real niece of the accused to
whom he was not a stranger and there was abusive talk by the accused-- -Accused could be identified even by his
voice which was not the only source of identification but there was evidence that the accused had been identified
otherwise in the light of electric bulb lit in the house of the complainant---Neither any significant improvement was
notified nor the complainant was required to give a detailed narration of the incident in the F. I. R. ---Injured witness
who was an independent witness had categorically stated that he noticed the accused throwing the grenade from
the roof of the house as a result of which he alongwith police officials sustained injuries---Ocular account had been
duly supported by the recovery of metallic pieces of hand-grenade, a fuse and veshal from the scene of occurrence,
blood secured from the house of the complainant with a positive result from the Bomb Disposal Expert and the
Forensic Science Laboratory---No motive for false implication had been pleaded---Prosecution case against the
accused thus stood proved---Appeal to the extent of S.3, Explosive Substances Act was not pressed by the Deputy
Advocate-General for want of requisite sanction from the Government---High Court set aside acquittal order passed
by the Trial Court and convicted and sentenced the accused under S.7(b), Anti-Terrorism Act to 8 years'rigorous
imprisonment alongwith fine and compensation to be paid to injured prosecution witness.
GHULAM MAQSOOD VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7-B ,
----Ss.324/336/337-A(i)-- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7-B---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence,

awarding of-Occurrence had taken place in bus in which both victim and accused were travelling-Accused being
annoyed with activities of victim who was his wife, was revengeful against her and without any intention to cause
terror and create sense of insecurity/fear to passengers travelling in bus, threw acid on the victim/wife---Case was
that of private revenge and mere fact that parties were travelling in public transport, would nor attract S. 6 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997--Sentence of the accused under S. 7-B of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 was set aside while awarded
under Ss.324 & 337-A(i), P.P.C was maintained and different sentences under Ss. 324, 336 & 337-A (i), P. P. C.
were also maintained to run consecutively.
GHULAM SHABBIR VS THE STATE
251 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

1969 SCMR 454, 1987 PCr.LJ 1689, 1991 SCMR 241,
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan
----Ss. 302/324/337-A (ii) /149---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 9 & 38---Appreciation of evidence---
Unlawful assembly---Common intention---Motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased was President of a
sectarian group and accused party belonged to a different sect and due to religious differences between the parties
occurrence took place and accused party took life of deceased and caused injuries to complainant and their
companions--Occurrence being result of a sectarian hatred, would constitute an act of terrorism---Defence version
was not supported by any evidence direct - or circumstantial in rebuttal to prosecution evidence to establish that
complainant and deceased were not victims of aggression at the hands of accused party--Evidence on record had
proved that deceased while proceeding in company of complainant was attacked by the accused and co-accused
being present there had participated in the attack---All the accused persons would be deemed to have formed an
unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object---Ample evidence was on record to show that accuses,
being member of unlawful assembly committed riot which ended in murder of deceased---Accused being member of
unlawful assembly would equally be responsible Jot murder of the deceased---Injuries sustained by two of the
accused would not ipso facto be an evidence either aggression of complainant party or free fight between the
parties--Accused while armed with deadly weapons, by showing force and violence in furtherance of their common
object having committed murder of deceased and caused injuries to witnesses, would be vicariously responsible for
murder---No exception could be taken to the finding of guilt of accused except one co accused who was an old man
of seventy years and admittedly was empty-handed and played no active role in the occurrence and had been
declared innocent by the Investigating Officer---Said co-accused was acquitted of the charges and was released
and conviction of remaining accused persons was maintained for committing intentional murder of the deceased---
Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment to the accused was converted into life imprisonment by the High
Court--Conviction and sentence under Ss. 324 & 149, P. P. C. being not justified, accused were acquitted for charge
under Ss. 324 & 149, P. P. C.
MUHAMMAD RIAZ VS Mian KHADIM HUSSAIN, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MIANWALI
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--SCHEDULE , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Pakistan
----S.6 & Sched., para. 2(a)(ii) --- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.
199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Sessions Court to Special Court---Reason which had led to the
murder of the deceased, a police officer, had no nexus with his official capacity---Case of the murder of the decased,
therefore, was not covered by the provisions of the Schedule appended to the Anti Terrorism Act,
1997---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, MULTAN
PLD 1998 SC 1445,
252 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

1973--199 ,
----Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), An. 199---Constitutional petition Permissible remissions grant of
accused in his petition had sought direction: against Authorities to include the remission granted from time to time
since after the dare of his arrest and to release him if he had already served out his entire sentence-Motive of
incident was that some time earlier a quarrel had taken place between brother-in-law of the complainant and the
accused on a passage, but a compromise had taken place Incident, in circumstances, was confined personal enmity
---Petitioner/accused was allegedly armed with pistol .30 bore while his co-accused were also armed with fire-arms
and the incident took place at night time and the accused were identified in the light or electric bulb---Incident which
was confined between the two parties and at night time could not have created a sense of fear and insecurity
among the people---Alleged incident constituting an offence had no nexus with the object as given in Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Mere trial by the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities
(Special Courts) Act, 1975 would not be sufficient to deprive the accused from remission granted by the Competent
Authorities---Authorities were directed to grant permissible remissions to the accused.
ZAHEER alias FAUJI VS THE STATE
1860--392 ,
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/392/34 --- Anti-Terrorism Act (XVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Bail, grant of---
Evidence -vas in the nature of last-seen evidence of prosecution witnesses who saw the deceased before his death
in the company of the accused---Prima facie case was made out against the accused for his role in planning the
case though he was not seen at the place of occurrence---Accused could not be enlarged on bail in circumstances.
IKRAM ULLAH VS THE STATE
253 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Ss. 302/324/379/404/411/34/149--Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Appreciation of evidence---Case

against the accused having been promptly registered in the police station, there was no occasion for deliberation
and consultation-- -Occurrence had taken place in broad daylight and no previous background of enmity existed
between the parties---Two assailants/accused were named in the F.I.R. while the description of three other accused
was also given ---Immediately after the arrest of three unknown accused, identification parade was held wherein
they were identified by the witnesses---Injured prosecution witnesses had not only identified the accused, but also
had stated the roles played by them during the occurrence before the police and the Trial Court--Number of the
accused coincided with the number of the injuries received by two deceased and three injured prosecution
witnesses ---Eyewitnesses were most natural witnesses-- -Ocular account was corroborated by the medical
evidence---Conduct of the complainant at the time and place of occurrence was natural and probable---Empties of a
kalashnikov and rifles recovered from the spot matched with the weapons got recovered by the accused---Motive of
occurrence had fully been proved-Identification parade was conducted in accordance with rules and regulations and
the eye-witnesses had stated the role of every accused at the time of identification parade---Cross-version as
pleaded by the accused proved to be absurd and improbable which did not appeal to reason, whereas the version
put forth by the prosecution seemed to be more plausible and nearer to the truth---Where automatic weapons like
kalashnikov and rifle had been used, case against the accused fell within the ambit of terrorism act and the Trial
Court was fully empowered to try the case---All the five accused, while armed with fire-arms having formed an
unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object having committed the murder of one parliamentarian
and another person and injured three prosecution witnesses which was definitely an act of terrorism and also
created panic in the society--No mitigating circumstance existed to award lesser sentence to the accused---Death
sentence awarded to the accused was confirmed.
NAZIM KHAN VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
1860--34 ,
----Ss. 302/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 2(e) & 6---Transfer of case from Special Judge Anti-
Terrorism Court to Sessions Judge---Deceased was a police personnel on home leave and incident had sparked off
over a triviality bearing no nexus with discharge of official duties of the deceased---Accused fired with a view to
avenging altercation ensued over cock's fight---Anti-Terrorism Court, in circumstances, would have no jurisdiction in
the matter---Submission of challan for trial of case before Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, was declared to be
without lawful authority and case was transferred to Sessions Judge for proceeding with same in accordance with
law.
GHULAM NABI KATHIO VS THE STATE
254 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----S. 10(3)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7--Appreciation of evidence---Accused being a poor man was
not able to afford any Advocate and remained throughout unrepresented---Accused also being an uneducated and
illiterate person was unable to defend himself and the Trial Court was duty bound in the interest of justice to come to
the rescue of the accused who on the face of the record had been victimized at the hands of the police and the local
Zamindar---False implication of the accused in the case by substituting his name in place of the name of the actual
culprit was very much apparent---Station House Officer of the concerned police station and his subordinate police
officials had falsely implicated the accused in the case for the reason best known to them---Accused was acquitted
in circumstances.
Shaikh MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Scope---Anti-Terrorism Court

established under Anti/Terrorism Act, 1997, shall have the jurisdiction to try an offence if it is a scheduled offence
and has nexus with Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the said Act.
MASTER HIKMAT ALI VS PRESIDING OFFICER/JUDGE SPECIAL COURT ATC HYDERABAD DIVISION,
HYDERABAD
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Offence of Zina
(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--17 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--144 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 ,
----Ss.337-A(i)/353/435/436/144/147/148/149---Offences gainst Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of

1979), S.17(3)--Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(d)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional
petition---Transfer of case to Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Accused had allegedly in company of other persons set
on fire Government vehicle and other property belonging to Government and others---Section 6(d) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 was in force on the date of the incident---Offence alleged to have been committed by the
accused being a scheduled offence was triable only by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Special Court constituted under
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence falling within the
definition of S.6(d) of the said Act---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
FARHAN ZAFAR VS THE STATE
255 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----S. 6 & Sched. [as substituted by Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of
2000)]---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439--Jurisdiction of Special Court---Offences of vehicle snatching
and criminal trespass (illegal Qabza) involved in the revision petitions were not covered by the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997, after the promulgation of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 and the same were no more
triable by the Anti-Terrorism Courts---Said offences were now triable by the Courts of Sessions or such other Courts
of competent jurisdiction---Impugned order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court refusing to transfer the cases to the
Sessions Court were consequently set aside being not in accordance with law and the cases were ordered to be
transferred to the respective Sessions Courts for further proceedings in accordance with law---Revision petitions
were accepted accordingly.
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF VS THE STATE
1986 SCMR 1056, 1991 MLD 2462, 2000 SCMR 1331, PLD 1977 Kar. 1049, PLD 2000 Kar. 89,
---Ss. 402-A & 402-B---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7(ii) & 38---Hijacking---Act of terrorism---Word
"likely" used in S.6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Significane and scope ---Sentence---Procedure--Contention
of the prosecution was that offence of hijacking punishable under S.402-B though having not been included in the
Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at the time of its promulgation but was inserted at a later stage by way of an
amendment after the commission of the offence in the present case constituted a "terrorist act" and was triable by
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997--Validity---Act of attempt of hijacking had been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution
and was punishable under S 402-B, P. P.C. --Hijacking in the manner committed in the present case was by itself
likely to create a sense of fear and insecurity not only in the inmates of the plane but also in the people generally---
Word "likely" as used in S.6(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in essence brought the act committed by the accused
within the fold of definition of "terrorist act"---Offence of committing terrorist act having been made out, separate
sentence of such offence was not called for in view of S.7(ii) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Principles.
THE STATE VS JAHANGIR AKHTER AWAN
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 6(b) & 23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Transfer of case from Anti-
Terrorism Court---Public servant was brutally murdered--Accused persons had not approached Anti-Terrorism Court
for transfer of the case under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and got the same transferred by High Court, in
Constitutional petition---Manner in which the deceased was done to death showed that it was an act of terrorism and
the same should have been allowed to be proceeded before Anti-Terrorism Court as required under S. 38 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether the judgment of High
Court was sustainable in law, whether notification regarding trial of the case by Anti-Terrorism Court could be
impugned in Constitutional petition before High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution; whether a criminal case
could be transferred to another Court by the High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction; and whether writ was
competent to stay the transfer of a criminal case from one jurisdiction to another in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.
199 of the Constitution.
256 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

BASHIR AHMAD VS NAVEED IQBAL
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 Ss. 6 & 7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Terrorist act/act of terrorism---Leave
to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, whether allegations made in the F.I.R constituted "terrorist" as
defined by S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; whether offence allegedly committed by the accused would be
punishable under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act. 1997. or under S.302, P.P.C.; whether offences, with which the accused
were charged were scheduled offences so as to be tried by AntiTerrorism Court and what would be the effect of law
enunciated by Supreme Court in Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 1445. over the
points arising in the case
MUMTAZ ALI KHAN RAJBAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 302/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---
Terrorist act---Threat given by accused had been translated into reality and the deceased was killed---Not necessary
that the force must have been used immediately after the threat-Act of the accused squarely fell within the scope of
"terrorist act", for the reason that as a consequence of the said threat the deceased was killed--Furthermore,
accused being an examinee in the Examination Hall as well as in the College every body knew about the threat
which struck terror and also created sense of fear and insecurity amongst people in general and
Teachers/Professors in particular-- -Impugned judgment of High Court being perfectly correct, warranted no
interference---Leave to appeal was refused accordingly.
ILLYAS MUHAMMAD VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, BAHAWALPUR
----Ss.392/458/411/353/324/109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), - S.6--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.

199--Constitutional petition-- Accused, no doubt, had allegedly fired at the police, but neither any personnel of police
force nor any other person was injured in the incident---Contents of F.I.R. revealed only an allegation of using force
against law enforcing agency which did not find any corroboration as no empty was recovered from the place of
occurrence---Act attributed to accused, thus, did not fall within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and
the Courts constituted under the said Act had no jurisdiction to try the case--Impugned order passed by Special
Court directing the accused to seek relief from a Court of ordinary jurisdiction, therefore, 'had been passed in
accordance with law and did not call for any inter petition was dismissed accordingly.
257 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS STATE
1999 YLR 1817,
----S. 10(3)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7(2)---Jurisdiction of Special Court---Validity---Words "child
molestation" had been added in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, on 27-4-1999 vide Ordinance IV of 1999 which
had to take effect from 24-2-1999---Occurrence had taken place on 4-5-1998 and the conviction was recorded on
28-2-2000---Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, had no jurisdiction to try the
case---Conviction and sentence of accused were consequently set aside and the case was remitted back to
Sessions Judge concerned to hold the trial himself and conclude the case within the specified period.
ASHIQ HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
----Ss. 12 & 6---Acquittal of accused from a scheduled offence---Effect on the conviction of accused on other non-
scheduled offences---Subsequent acquittal of accused from a scheduled offence would neither affect the jurisdiction
of the Special Court nor affect the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the said Court for the remaining
charges for commission of non-scheduled offences.
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD LATIF VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM
----Ss. 302/201/148/149/197---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.199---Constitutional petition--Case sent to Special Court---Validity---Case was an outcome of an alleged
encounter between the deceased persons and the police in which five persons had been killed, but no police
personnel was injured or killed---Case had been sent to the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 for trial, jurisdiction of which had been assailed---Offences with which the accused were charged admittedly
were not scheduled offences---Trial Court was to decide whether the police officials involved in the case while
performing their duty were legally justified to commit the act attributed to them or whether the alleged police
encounter was fake or otherwise---Assumption of jurisdiction in the matter by the Special Court was declared to be
without lawful authority in circumstances with the direction to prosecution to send the case for trial to the Sessions
Court.
258 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

NOOR KHAN VS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT, ANTI-TERRORISM, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA
PLD 1998 SC 1445,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
----Ss. 302/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.23, 6, 7 & 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to regular Court---Case related to murder due to the previous
murder enmity and the deceased, a public servant, was not killed because he was a Patwari or because of the
performance of his official duties as Patwari--Reasoning of the Special Court that the case was triable by the said
Court because the Patwari was killed when he was on duty was not sustainable as that would mean that when a
public servant was killed while on duty, the case would be triable by Anti-Terrorism Court and when he- was killed
during off duty hours it was not triable by it, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, did not create any such classification---Case
even did not involve the element of terrorism acid had no nexus with the object of the said Act and its Ss.6, 7 & 8, as
it was a simple case of murder due to previous murder enmity and was not committed in a manner which struck
terror or created a sense of fear and insecurity in the people or in a section of people except in the ordinary sense of
insecurity created at the time of commission of every crime ---Anti-Terrorism Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to
try the case and High Court directed to send the case to the Court having plenary jurisdiction--Constitutional petition
was accepted accordingly.
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.
MUHAMMAD AJMAL VS STATE
1860--34 ,
259 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 302/34 & 324---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 6--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---
Accused had behaved in an inhuman manner who while entering inside the Court-room made indiscriminate firing at
the complainant party and personnel of the Court staff and killed complainant's brother, Naib-Qasid of the Court and
severely injured Reader of the Court, thus created a sense of fear and insecurity among the people---All the
witnesses examined at trial had fully supported the case of prosecution against the accused on the score that he
fired indiscriminately in the Count-room and that he was apprehended then and there alongwith his .30 bore; pistol,
the crime weapon---Five crime empties with lead bullets were recovered from .the Court-room which were sealed
and sent for expert opinion alongwith crime weapon and the same were opined to have been fired from the said
weapon--.-Accused had also admitted the incident partly by stating in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. that there
existed a criminal litigation in-between him and the deceased and that on the day of incident their case was fixed
before the Court---Accused did not examine himself on oath as required under S.340(2), Cr.P.C.---Partial admission
of the accused that he was present in Court on the day of incident went to show his complicity in the commission of
offence---Petition for leave to appeal was barred by 29 days for which neither any plausible explanation had been
furnished nor any application for condonation of delay was filed--No infirmity or legal flaw in the judgment of the
High Court had been pointed out---Petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court was dismissed by
Supreme Court.

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH VS ASIF ALI ZARDARI
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 ,
S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Terrorist act---
Murder of civil servants with Kalashnikov---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine the
contention that the offence alleged against the accused under 5.302, P.P.C. if amounted to a terrorist act as defined
in S. 6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, then notwithstanding the fact that the act was not committed with the weapon
mentioned in the Sched. to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or that the persons were not public servants would still be
cognizable by a Special Court, Anti-Terrorism and whether in view of the allegations in the F.I.R. against accused,
the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court Anti Terrorism.
THE STATE VS ABDUL MALIK
260 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 Ss. 6 & 7---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10---"Child
molestation"---Meaning---Jurisdiction of Special Court to decide case of child molestation---Scope---Expression
"child molestation" which had not been defined in any law in Pakistan, was some times used as synonymous to child
abuse, but all acts of child abuse would not necessarily be "child molestation" ---Sexual molestation of child could be
of various types---Such molestation could be fondling of genital organs of child or it could be showing him nude
photographs-to-arouse his sexual emotions or it could be in form of physical nudity with the object of sexually
provoking or exploiting a child---Most of said acts had not been specially made offences in criminal law of Pakistan
nor rape of a child had been separately catered for--Rape of a child or "Zina-bil-Jabr" was, an aggravated form of
child molestation and a person who was proved to have committed said offence, would be punished in terms of
punishment provided in Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979---Offence of child rape, thus.
would be tried by a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
ATA ULLAH VS THE STATE
Ss. 298-B &_ 298-C---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6--Applicability of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Scope---Effect contemplated under S.6(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1,997 must be relatable to a scheduled
offence---Offence committed under Ss.298-B & 298-C, P.P.C. being not scheduled offences, provision of S.6, Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 was not applicable.
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.
THE STATE VS SHAMSHUR REHMAN
1965--13-D ,
261 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----S.302/353/324---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (IOC of 1965), S.13-D---AntiTerrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6,
7, 25, 31 & 32---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.435/439---Case transferred by Special Court to Sessions
Court---Revision petition, maintainability of---Weapons required under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to attract the
jurisdiction of Special Court were not used in the commission of the offence---Main ingredients of S.7 of the said Act
were also not attracted in the case as the occurrence had taken place due to previous incident of slapping the father
of accused without any intention to cause terror or create sense of fear and insecurity among the people---Reasons
of vindication of family enmity and the motive had been given in the F.LR. and initial intention of the accused was to
take revenge from the deceased---No revision was provided in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for challenging the
impugned order of Special Court transferring the case to the Sessions Court and the provisions of Ss-25, 31 & 32 of
the said Act when read in conjunction with each other, did not permit the same---Criminal revision, thus, was not
maintainable and was dismissed in limine accordingly.
JAWED AHMED SIDDIQUI VS STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----S. 6(a)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b)/34 & 392/34---Murder--Death was caused
by sharp-cutting weapon such as knife---No threat with use of force to prevent a public servant from discharging
lawful duty was attributed to accused---Provision of S.6(a), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was not attracted in
circumstances.
JUNAID VS STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Explosive Substances Act 1908--3 , Explosive Substances
Act 1908--5 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 ,
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.353/324/147/148/149---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908),
S.3/5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6/7---Bail---Case was one of ineffective firing which was not attributed
to accused---No private person had been picked up from the heavily congested place of occurrence of the city to
give evidence on the incident---How the Police officials had identified the accused by name as soon as they came
within their sight who were not known to them, was not understandable---No empty of the specified rifle was found
at the place of incident---Such facts had made the case against the accused one of further inquiry---Accused were
admitted to bail accordingly.
NAWAZ SHARIF VS STATE
1984 PCr.LJ 2514, 1988 PCr.LJ 2156, 1988 PCr.LJ 73, 1988 PCr.LJ 988, 1990 PCr.LJ 1708, 1991 PCr.LJ 595, 1992
PCr.LJ 127, 1997 PCr.LJ 184, 1998 PCr.LJ 87, PLD 1948 PC 11,
262 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--19 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--30 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--32
, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--196 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--120-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--121-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--121 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--122 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--123 ,
----Ss.l(2) & 196---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 12, 19, 30 & 32---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 120-
B, 121, 121-A, 122 & 123--Prosecution for offences against State---Competency of proceedings--Accused had filed
applications under 5.196, Cr.P.C. contending that as cases registered against him pertained to offences against
State, cognizance thereof could not be taken unless clog put in S.196, Cr.P.C. was removed---Accused. had further
asserted that provisions of S.196, Cr.P.C. being mandatory in nature; unless prohibition contained in said section
was crossed by sanction of Central or Provincial Government followed by a complaint by an authorised person,
Court could not take cognizance of offences against him---Validity---Cases registered against accused being triable
by Special Court established under provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, provisions of S.196, Cr.P.C. which
pertained to general law, would not be applicable to proceedings before Special Court because the Act which was a
special law had overriding effect notwithstanding anything contained in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 or any other
law---Provisions of s.l96, Cr.P.C. would not be applicable to proceedings before Special Court in view of
inconsistency and difference between provisions of S.30, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and S.196 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1898---Provisions of S.32 of the Act pertaining to overriding effect of the Act would come into play and bar
contained in S.196, Cr.P.C. would not in any way affect the taking of cognizance by Special Court in exercising
power under S.19 of AntiTerrorism Act, 1997.
JAHANGIR AKHTAR AWAN VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----S. 6---"Terrorist Act"---Connotation---Act of terrorism is a pre-planned and organized
system of intimidation, effects of which are made known to the people and widely circulated with exaggeration---
Such act is neither hidden nor disguised and is committed with the sole object to terrorise the people and to feel
them insecure.
ZAHID PARVEZ VS SPECIAL JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT NO. L FOR ANIT-TERRORISM, BAHAWALPUR
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss.6(c), 7(ii), 12 & 23---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of
1979), S.12---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 364-A & 377---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional
petition... Special Court, jurisdiction of---Child molestation, act of terrorism---Accused was charged for an act of child
molestation and Special Court had taken cognizance of the matter---Validity---Offences under Ss.364-A & 377, P. P.
C., and offence under S.12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 were not mentioned in
Schedule annexed with Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Effect---Special Courts constituted under S.12, Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 had no jurisdiction to try accused charged under such provision---Case of accused war transferred by
High Court to a Court of ordinary jurisdiction in circumstances.
263 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

HARIS ABDULLAH VS STATE
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--11 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,
----Ss.10(4) & 11---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-J & 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII. of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8 &
12--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Special Court to Criminal
Court--Accused had sought transfer of cases pending against them in Special Anti-Terrorism Court to Criminal Court
contending that the cases did not disclose commission of terrorist act--Facts of the cases could not be classified as
terrorist acts to justify assumption of jurisdiction by Special Anti-Terrorist Court, except that certain features
warranted that the cases be decided expeditiously---High Court directed that cases against accused pending in
Special Anti-Terrorism Court be transferred to Court of District and Sessions Judge and be decided within a period
of three months from date of appearance of accused before Court.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS S.H.O.
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----S. 6---"Terrorism", "terrorist organisation" and "criminal activity"--Meanings and objects---
Remedy.
ASIF ALI ZARDARI VS STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 23---Transfer of case---For declaring an offence to be a scheduled offence
and in line with the object of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it was to be seen that the offence mentioned in the Sched.
had any nexus with the very object of the said Act for which it had been enacted and that the offence itself was
covered by the provisions of Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of the said Act---Deceased was not on his official duty, but had been killed
because of his personal enmity while he was on his private personal visit---Other deceased was also not on his
official duty, but was going to his village for some personal work--Offence committed with light or heavy automatic
weapon had been taken out of the Sched. of the Anti-Terrorsim Act---Offence alleged in the case, thus, had no
nexus with the object of the provisions of Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but was covered by the
Schedule to Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975---Case was consequently transferred from
Special Court of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to Special Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act,
1975.
264 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

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.
Citation Name: 1999 YLR 1102 APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-ANTI-TERRORISM-SINDH Bookmark this Case
MOINUDDIN VS STATE
----S. 302/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Act of accused being not a terrorist act, case was
remanded---Contents of the FI.R. and the evidence recorded at the trial revealed that the incident had occurred on
account of private dispute between the accused party and the complainant party---Deceased, no doubt, was a
police constable, but he had been murdered solely on account of personal enmity while he was inside his house---
Murder, therefore, had no nexus with the act of terrorism within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorist Act,
1997---Appeal being a continuation of trial, conviction and sentence passed upon the accused by the Special Court
constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were consequently set aside being without jurisdiction and the case
was remanded to the Sessions Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
MEHRAM ALI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
PLD 1993 SC 341, PLD 1996 SC 324,
Sched., Ss.6, 7 & 8---Terrorist act- --Punishment for terrorist act--Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up
sectarian hatred---Offences mentioned in the Sched. to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 should have nexus with the
objects mentioned in Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the Act---If an offence included in the Schedule has no nexus with Ss.6, 7 & 8 of
the Act, in that event, notification including such an offence, to that extent will be ultra vires---Such declaration by
Supreme Court, however, will not affect the trials already conducted and convictions recorded under the Act and the
pending trials may continue subject to this order.
265 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

----Sched. & Ss.6, 7 & 8---Terrorist act---Punishment for terrorist act--Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up
sectarian hatred---Offences mentioned in the Sched. to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 should have nexus with the
objects mentioned in Ss. 6 7 & 8 of the Act---Such declaration by Supreme Court, however, will not affect the trials
already conducted and convictions recorded under the Act and the pending trials may continue subject to this order.
FAISAL IQBAL VS THE STATE
1990 PCr.LJ 1719, 1992 PCr.LJ 2308, 1992 SCMR 563, 1993 PCr.LJ 1805, 1994 SCMR 717, PLD 1971 Lah. 537,
PLD 1972 Lah. 880, PLD 1975 SC 66, PLD 1976 Lah. 823, PLD 1976 SC 195, PLD 1977 SC 273, PLD 1989 SC
633, PLD 1993 SC 901,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 S. 302/324/148/149/109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2(e), 6, 7, 12 &

13---Transfer of case to Special Court---Additional Sessions Judge, after enactment of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
transferred case of accused to Presiding Officer of Special Court---Accused had challenged such transfer
contending that in absence of any provision in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 whereby a case pending before Sessions
Court or any other Court could be transferred to the Special Court constituted under that Act, his case could not be
transferred to Special Court---Contention of accused was repelled because provisions of AntiTerrorism Act, 1997
had left no doubt that once prima facie a scheduled offence was shown to have been committed, no other Court
except the Special Court under Anti-Terrorism, Act, 1997, could try such an offence and that any such case pending
.in any other Court would stand automatically transferred to Special Court---By operation of provisions of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 automatic transfer of the cases of scheduled offences would be from any or every Court to the
Special Court---For the purpose of determining whether or not an offence was a scheduled offence, such question
was to be determined on the basis of F.I.R. and the other material produced by prosecution at the time of
presentation of challan---Special Court was to decide on the basis of such material whether cognizance was to be
taken or not---Once an offence was declared to be scheduled offence, the ordinary Courts would cease to have
jurisdiction for the trial of such an offence which would be exclusively tried by a Special Court---Offences under Anti-
Terrorism, Act, 1997 were not the only ones which could be tried by Special Court, but jurisdiction of Special Court
would also extend to all other offences mentioned in the Schedule of AntiTerrorism, Act, 1997---Accused having
committed scheduled offence, no exception could be taken to the transfer of his case to Special Court.
266 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Ss. 32 & 6---Terrorist act---Provision of S.32, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 overrides any provision of law for the time
being in force and if a person is accused of having committed terrorist act under S.6 of the said Act, that case can
only be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and not any other Court---
Contention that Executive has been given unbridled power to choose as to whether a particular accused would be
tried by the Special Court under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist
Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 or the ordinary Court was repelled being not impressive.
INAM ULLAH RASHID VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Suppression of
Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act 1975--2 , Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act 1975--3 ,
S. 353/186/324/34---Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), Ss.2(b)(c), 3 & 4---Anti-
Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6--Jurisdiction of Special Court---Accused persons were alleged to have taken the
law in their hands when challenged by police party about the violation of ban regarding pillion riding---Allegations
against accused persons being not covered by definition of "terrorist act" as provided under S.6 of Anti-Terrorist Act,
1997, offence of accused person did not fall within Schedule to AntiTerrorism Act, 1997---Member of police party
who was injured having survived, offences against accused persons fell under S.324/353/34, P.P.C. which offences
were not mentioned in Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 so as to confer jurisdiction of Court constituted under
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997--Further allegation against accused persons was that they used rifle and pistol but even in
F.I.R. it was not narrated whether the alleged weapons were automatic or semi-automatic---Offence against accused
persons, thus, were not triable by Court under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courtsj Act, 1975 and
offences against accused persons under Ss.353 & 186, P.P.C. were also not scheduled offences under that Act---
Court constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, thus, also had no jurisdiction
to hear case in view of S.4 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts)
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 32 & 6---Terrorist act---Provision of S.32, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 overrides any
provision of law for the time being in force and if a person is accused of having committed terrorist act under S.6 of
the said Act, that case can only be tried by the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and not
any other Court---Contention that Executive has been given unbridled power to choose as to whether a particular
accused would be tried by the Special Court under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or Special Court under the Suppression
of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 or the ordinary Court was repelled being not impressive.
Citation Name: 1998 MLD 1400 APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-ANTI-TERRORISM-SINDH Bookmark this Case
JAVED MALIK VS THE STATE
267 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----S. 6---Terrorist act---Offence committed by using a fire-arm definitely falls within the
ambit of the term "Terrorist act" used in S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
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
Federal
Punjab
KPK
268 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

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
269 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Section 6

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

Section 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.

Search in Staute -- Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-6

Enter Keyword Enter Court All Search

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-6

Your Search returned total 572 records from 0 - 50

Citation Name: 2020 SCMR 1422 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

SADIQ ULLAH VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 SCMR 116 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

ABDUL HAQ VS State

1 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

S. 6(2)(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-A---Kidnapping or abduction for ransom---Reappraisal of evidence---

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 SCMR 78 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

FAROOQ AHMED VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 SCMR 78 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

FAROOQ AHMED VS State

Head Notes Case Description

2 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 61 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

GHULAM HUSSAIN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 61 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

GHULAM HUSSAIN VS State

S. 6(2)---"Terrorism"---Offence committed due to personal enmity or vendetta---Actions specified in subsection (2) of

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 61 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

GHULAM HUSSAIN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

3 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 61 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

GHULAM HUSSAIN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 61 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

GHULAM HUSSAIN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 61 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

GHULAM HUSSAIN VS State

4 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 427 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

ALI GOHAR VS PERVAIZ AHMED

Head Notes Case Description

5 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 427 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

ALI GOHAR VS PERVAIZ AHMED

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1241 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1228 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD ASIF VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1228 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD ASIF VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT

6 of 269 10/15/2020, 11:31 AM

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 807 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

State VS JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD

S. 6---"Terrorism"---Murderous assault on the police in order to save oneself from arrest---Scope---Question

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 714 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

ABDUL RASHEED alias SOMI VS State

Head Notes Case Description