Section 9

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 1997-9
Enter Keyword Enter Court All Search
Back
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-9
Your Search returned total 29 records from 0 - 29
Citation Name: 2020 MLD 1248 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
SHAHID HUSSAIN VS State
Ss. 9, 8, 11-F, 11-W &19-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Prohibition of acts likely to stir up
sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization---Mode of making
searches and arrest---Search to be made in presence of witnesses---Appreciation of evidence---Police witnesses---
Scope---Complainant, an Inspector of police, complained that people of different sects came to him and complained
about the spite being spread by the accused through facebook---Investigating officer deposed that the accused
during investigation had disclosed the password of his facebook account and the account was checked by an
Incharge of the IT department who had found the spiteful conversations---Witnesses had remained consistent on all
material points---Accused had cross-examined them at length but had failed to impeach their credibility---Police
witnesses were as good as any other witness unless it was proved through reliable evidence that they had a reason
to falsely implicate the accused---No such material was brought on record in the case---Section 19-A, Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.---Investigating Officer had sent the USB (Universal Serial Bus)
flash drive and the CPU (Central Processing Unit) to the Forensic Laboratory---Report of Forensic Laboratory had
reinforced the prosecution case---Prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of
doubt---High Court, while dismissing appeal, reduced the sentence handed down by the Trial Court as the accused
was a first offender.
Head Notes Case Description
1 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check
Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1646 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case
Qari MUHAMMAD ISHAQ GHAZI VS State
S. 9---Possession of pamphlets containing content inciting violence against a particular sect---Reappraisal of

evidence---Non-association of private witnesses---Police witnesses, credibility of---Police officials, being
functionaries of the State, were no less credible witnesses to drive home the charge---Police officials were as good
witnesses as any other and their evidence was subject to the same standard of proof and principles of scrutiny as
applicable to any other category of witnesses---In the absence of any animus, infirmity or flaw in their depositions,
their statements could be relied upon without demur---Officials who testified in the witness-box had seemingly no
axe to grind against the accused, and were in comfortable unison with one another---Appeal against conviction was
dismissed with the observation that people in the society generally preferred to recuse behind safety instead of
coming forward in aid of justice.
S. 9---Possession of pamphlets containing content inciting violence against a particular sect---Reappraisal of

evidence---Contents of the pamphlets were repugnant and abhorrent, capable of causing most grievous offence---
Said pamphlets contravened all limits of decency, an obligation sanctimoniously upheld by every faith---Anti-
Terrorism Court had rightly convicted the accused under S. 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to 5
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100,000---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
S. 9---Possession of pamphlets containing content inciting violence against a particular sect---Whether mere
possession of such pamphlets was sufficient to attract provisions of S. 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Held, that
S. 9 of the said Act, unambiguously, suggested that possession of the inflammatory material by itself was an offence
even before it was distributed---Legislature intended to nip the evil in the bud given the inflammatory potential of the
crime---Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly convicted the accused under S. 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for mere
possession of the inflammatory pamphlets---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 920 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
ASIM NAWAZ alias KALEEM NAWAZ VS State
2 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
Ss. 9 & 11-W(2)---Sectarian hate speech and propagating banned organizations---Appreciation of evidence---
Sentences, reduction in---Special circumstances---Effect---Accused was convicted by Trial Court on sectarian hate
speech, propagating banned organizations and was variously sentenced to imprisonment and fine---Validity---Detail
of audio files, graphic files and multimedia files was provided in accompanying DVD-I, DVD-II and DVD-III by Punjab
Forensic Science Laboratory---Investigating officer also received Verisys verification regarding ownership of SIM
Card recovered from mobile phone, which was in name of accused---Prosecution witnesses gave each and every
detail of prosecution case and were cross-examined at length---Nothing fruitful cropped up during cross-
examination---Tenor of cross-examination also revealed that facts in issue were not challenged seriously---Trial
Court rightly appreciated evidence and had rightly found accused guilty of charge levelled against him---Prosecution
had successfully proved its case beyond shadow of doubt by producing relevant and admissible evidence---High
Court maintained conviction of accused but taking into account mitigating circumstances reduced sentence of
imprisonment to that of already undergone but quantum of fine was maintained---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
ASIM NAWAZ alias KALEEM NAWAZ VS State
Ss. 9 & 11-W(2)---Sentence---Words 'may extend to' in Ss. 9 & 11, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Connotation---By
using words 'may extend to' in such provisions of law provides unspecific sentences and is indicative that courts
have to appreciate circumstances indicative of reformation of a convict before deciding about quantum of sentence.
Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
WASIM ABBAS VS State
Ss. 9 & 11-W---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Suspension of execution of sentence---Scope---Release of

accused on bail pending appeal---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Petitioner/convict contended that appeal
preferred by him having not been decided within the period statutorily provided under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
thus, case for his release on bail through suspension of execution of sentence stood made out---Prosecution
contended that petitioner was not entitled for release as he was convicted on the charge of inciting division and
disharmony in already volatile society---High Court, though, was vested with ample authority to release convict in
exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, however, power of such amplitude was to be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in cases of extreme hardship---Hardship of prisoner could be quantified to deny him extenuation,
however, his release on bail on account of non-disposal of appeal within the prescribed period would defeat the very
purpose of the special law---Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked to defeat legislative intent---High Court
directed the office to post the main case with a convenient dispatch---Constitutional petition was dismissed
accordingly.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 187 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
Mir NISAR HASSNAIN RAMAL VS State
3 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 123-A, 124-A & 153---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 9(1), 19(7),
11-E(4), 11-EE, Sched. IV---Condemnation of the State and advocacy of abolition of its sovereignty, sedition,
wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot, terrorism---Bail, grant of---Member of proscribed organization---
Petitioner allegedly sent objectionable messages against the creation and sovereignty of State (Gilgit Baltistan)
through WhatsApp to different sections of society---Record revealed that challan of the present case had been
submitted after almost three months of registration of FIR whereas under S. 9(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 the
investigation was to complete within thirty working days---Trial Court had also failed to decide the case despite
elapse of six months whereas under S. 19(7) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Trial Court was bound to proceed with the
trial from day to day basis and would decide the case within seven days---Section 11-EE(IV), Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997 was meant for the proscribed organization or its members but present petitioner was, admittedly not member
of any proscribed organization---Prosecution, prima facie, had placed name of the petitioner in Sched. IV of S. 11-
EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 with mala fide intention---Perusal of contents of messages revealed that the
petitioner had not forwarded any detestable message and neither he had provoked the feelings of the locality nor
had condemned the creation of the state and its sovereignty, hence the petitioner was entitled for the concession of
bail---Bail was granted to the petitioner, in circumstances.
MUHAMMAD NOMAN VS State
S. 497(2)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 9---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Ss. 13-2(A) &
20---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 4---Acts of terrorism, possession of illegal weapons, explosives and
time-bombs---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Counter-Terrorism Department alleged that accused and co-accused
persons were arrested while travelling in a car, that contained arms, ammunition, bombs, explosives and militant
literature---Family of accused on the other hand alleged that accused was picked up from his house by some
unknown persons and subsequently police showed his arrest; that the incident of accused's abduction was
immediately reported to the police, and that a habeas corpus petition was also filed to find the whereabouts of the
accused after his abduction---Written complaint submitted by family of accused about his abduction from his house,
was neither inquired into nor investigated in any manner whatsoever, rather the same was deliberately suppressed
by the police---Investigating officer had not opined that the accused was found connected with any militant group or
had been found financer or provided any other facility to militants---Investigation/inquiry carried out was neither
satisfactory nor free from malice and the accused's implication in present case was not free from reasonable doubt,
thus, he could not be left at the mercy of the police---Investigation, in the present case, was one-sided and the other
aspects of vital importance were not touched much less investigated into without any explanation offered by the
investigating officer---Case of the accused was one of further inquiry into his guilt---Accused was granted bail
accordingly.
MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS State
4 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
Ss. 7(g) & 9---Speech creating sectarian hatred--- Appreciation of evidence---Slogans against Armed Forces and a
particular sect---Funeral procession---Identification and nomination of accused persons---Complainant in his
statement contended that he nominated the accused persons by knowing their names through security officials and
C.T.D. officials who were present at the spot---Complainant captured the event by camera but did not disclose such
recording for helping in identifying the accused---Number of participants in the procession were not mentioned in the
complaint by the complainant but he mentioned them between 500-1000 during his testimony---Source persons
were also not cited as the witnesses---No person from a particular sect appeared to join the investigation---
Testimony of complainant was nothing but an unresolved riddle which did not establish the identification of
accused---To select a few from hundreds of slogan raisers, if at all it was so, for naming them as accused in such a
case required a high degree of sensibility, which was not shown---Extra pace of the trial to overcome much needed
sensibility as to the said fact, could result in a fallacious verdict of guilt against the accused---Prosecution could not
establish identity of the accused beyond mere estimations---Conviction and sentence of accused was set aside.
MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS State
Ss. 7(g) & 9---Speech creating sectarian hatred---Appreciation of evidence---Backdrop of hanging of a person was
not known which would reflect on the veracity of allegations, levelled by the prosecution against the accused---
Some oral or documentary evidence had been produced by the prosecution in this regard---Such hidden aspect
made the case hazier---Accused were acquitted.
JAVED IQBAL VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--186 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-A , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--295-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--337-L , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Reappraisal of evidence--TERM ,
5 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
Ss. 295-A, 295-B, 302(b), 324, 337-L(2), 148, 149, 186 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(a) &
9---Cross-firing between police and participants of a procession---Reappraisal of evidence---Accused persons were
part of a procession led by the co-accused who claimed to be the "Imam Mehdi"---Cross-firing between the
procession and police resulted in death of one person and caused injuries to several others---Record showed that
police party also fired upon the procession---No police official received any bullet injury, whereas three accused
persons suffered bullet injuries---All crime empties were attributed to accused persons and no crime empty from
bullets fired by police was shown during investigation---Parcels of crime empties and weapons were sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory after an unexplained delay of 11 days---Eye-witnesses did not attribute direct role of
firing at deceased to any particular accused---Prosecution evidence lacked examination of any independent witness
from the locality and many other material witnesses; contained vague/general allegations with material
contradictions about the whole incident, and was not sufficient either to fix the responsibility of murder of deceased
or injuries to some persons or to show any of the ingredients to justify their conviction under Ss. 7(a) & 9 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Possibility that death of deceased and injuries to some persons might have been the result of
police firing could not be ruled out---Accused persons had served their substantive sentences for over 9-years and
9-months---Conviction of accused persons under Ss.302(b), 324, 337L(2), P.P.C. and Ss. 7(a) & 9 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 were set aside, while their conviction and sentences awarded by Trial Court under Ss. 295-A,
295-B, 148, 149, 186 & 353, P.P.C. were maintained.
JAVED IQBAL VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--186 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-A , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--295-B , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-C , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-L , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Reappraisal of evidence--TERM ,
Ss. 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 302(b), 324, 337-L(2), 148, 149, 186 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(a)
& 9---Cross-firing between police and participants of a procession---Reappraisal of evidence---Accused who claimed
to be the "Imam Mehdi", led a procession of co-accused persons, who exchanged fire with the police resulting in
death of one person and injuries to several others---Accused was convicted and sentenced to death under Ss. 295-
A, 295-B, 295-C, 302(b), 324, 337-L(2), 148, 149, 186 & 353 & Ss. 7(a) & 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High
Court set-aside conviction of accused to the extent of S. 295-C, P.P.C and did not confirm death sentence awarded
by Trial Court---Validity---Police had also fired upon the procession---Possibility that death of deceased and injuries
to some persons might have been the result of police firing could not be ruled out---Conviction of accused under Ss.
302(b) & 324, P.P.C. was set aside, while sentences under other provisions of law awarded to him by the Trial Court,
as modified by the High Court, were upheld in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2016 YLR 1340 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
Mulana MAQBOOL MIR VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--11-F , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--11-W , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 ,
6 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
S. 497---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.9, 11-F & 11-W---Acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred,
membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, printing, publishing, or disseminating any
material to incite hatred, or giving projection to any person convicted for a terrorist act---Bail, grant of---Offences
under S.11-F of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were bailable--- Offences of Ss.11-W & 9 of said Act did not fall within the
prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Grant of bail in case of offences, that did not fall within prohibitory clause of
S.497, Cr.P.C., was a rule, while refusal thereof was an exception---Circumstances of the present case could not be
given treatment of an exception---Accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 768 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
State VS SUFI ALI
1994 PCr.LJ 229, 2000 PCr.LJ 902, PLD 1972 SC 271, PLD 1985 SC 11,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Appeal Against Acquittal--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) 1898--196 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--417 , Maintainability--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--153-A , Procedure--TERM ,
S. 153-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.8 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.417(2) &
196---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Promoting enmity between
different groups, acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred and offences against the State---Procedure---
Appeal against acquittal---Maintainability---Section 196, Cr.P.C., had elaborated that it was the domain of the Central
Government or the Provincial Government or an officer empowered on their behalf to move a complaint for
invocation of S.153-A, P.P.C.---Procedure specified in S.196, Cr.P.C., had to be strictly complied with and any defect
in procedure was not curable---Such mandatorily expressed provision could not and should not be overlooked---
Supreme Appellate Court observed that Legal Branch in Gilgit-Baltistan, should be well versed with such matters
and all District Police Officers should be acquainted with the matters for which procedure had been laid down and
steps to be taken---Findings of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, in the present case, whereby accused were acquitted
from the charges, prosecution and Law Department should have gone through the clear cut orders of the court and
realized their mistake, and having legal approach not to prefer an appeal in the Supreme Appellate Court, as the
said order had no infirmities---Legal department, in the present case, should have consulted the Advocate General
Gilgit-Baltistan, who was representing them; if they did not agree to his professional advice, then Law Department
should depute one of its experts, and well versed officers to deal with the matter with their professional advice by
performing such non-maintainable appeal against acquittal, revisions and reviews---Supreme Appellate Court further
observed that findings of the Chief Court, in the present case, were not based on the merits and quality of evidence
adduced, but on the mode adopted for prosecution of the individuals.
Citation Name: 2014 GBLR 137 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case
State VS SUFI ALI
7 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
S. 153-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.8, 9 & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.196 &
417(2)---Promoting enmity between different groups, act of terrorism---Appeal against acquittal---Case was
registered on information with the delay of almost 20 days---Procedure---Police Officer was duty bound to send
report to the Magistrate concerned forthwith---Police Officer did not send any such report to the Magistrate, which
had caused a serious doubt about the secret information and proceedings by the Police Officer---Case could not be
registered with promptitude, which had made the case of prosecution doubtful---Prosecution witnesses had stated
that they were never associated with the investigation of the case nor their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., were
ever recorded by the Investigating Officer---Inference could be drawn that witnesses had not seen accused persons
while committing the offence---Whole exercise undertaken by the Investigator, while collecting the incriminating
material from accused persons, was rendered futile---Such kind of evidence could not be relied upon for conviction
and sentence, particularly, when appeal was against acquittal---Cognizance in the offence under S.153-A, P.P.C.,
could not be taken to any court in view of S.196, Cr.P.C.---Registration of FIR in such a manner was void ab initio---
Offence under S.153-A, P.P.C., could not be termed as an offence against individual, rather it was an offence
against the State---Court would take the cognizance of offence punishable under S.153-A, P.P.C., upon a complaint
made by Federal Government or Provincial Government or some officer so empowered in that behalf by any of the
two Governments---No sanction was accorded, entitling the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court to take the cognizance of
the offence under S.153-A, P.P.C.---Case in an offence under S.153-A, P.P.C., could not be proceeded on the report
prepared under S.173, Cr.P.C.---Non-adherence and observance of the provisions of S.196, Cr.P.C., rendered the
subsequent proceedings a nullity---Where a condition for the exercise of jurisdiction, was not fulfilled, the whole
proceedings, subsequent thereto would become coram non judice, and would have no legal effect, and would
render the whole exercise, not only illegal, but also without jurisdiction---Accused was presumed to be innocent,
unless found guilty---Supreme Appellate Court, could not substitute its own finding, unless it was found that the
findings of the Chief Court, were based on mis-reading of the evidence leading to miscarriage of justice---Judgment
of the Chief Court, whereby, accused persons were acquitted, was unexceptional, and did not require any
interference, in circumstances.
Malik MUHAMMAD ISHAQ VS State
Administration of Justice--TERM , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-A , West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960--16 ,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 295-A---West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of
1960), S. 16---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9---Deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious
feelings, stirring up sectarian hatred and disrupting public peace---Bail, grant of---Administration of justice---Accused
had been detained under various preventive detention orders since 22-5-2013, and he, despite having been granted
bail in various cases registered under S.16 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, and Ss.
188 & 295-A, P.P.C. by different Courts of law, had not been released from prison---Validity---Accused did not
condemn or abuse or verbally attack the sect, rather he spoke in praise of the pious companions (may the Almighty
be pleased with them) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) by referring to various verses from the
glorious Qur'an with the pledge that their dignity, nobility and eminence was to be defended, the way it ought to be---
Any person could follow any school of thought as regarded by the faith and could keep allegiance with any sect but
it had to be remembered that survival as nation was only in sactarian harmony, inter-faith coherence and on the
principle of 'live and let live'---No one could be left to rot in jail for an indefinite period of time to satisfy a grudge,
whimsical or otherwise, of anyone---Justice could not be allowed to be brutalized to curtail life and liberty of any
individual, who was hard nut to crack by police---Period of incarceration of accused, if extended, would serve no
useful purpose---Bail was allowed in circumstances.
8 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
Citation Name: 2014 YLR 2134 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
RAZA MUHAMMAD SHAH VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--196 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--296 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--298 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--341 , West Pakistan Regulation and Control of Loudspeakers and Sound Amplifiers
Ordinance 1965--PREAMBLE ,
Ss. 497(2) & 196---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 295-A, 296, 298 & 341---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.
9---West Pakistan Regulation and Control of Loudspeakers and Sound Amplifiers Ordinance (II of 1965),
Preamble---Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion
or religious beliefs, disturbing religious assembly, uttering words etc. with deliberate intent to wound religious
feelings, wrongful restraint, acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, restriction on the use of load speaker
etc.---Bail, grant of---Sanction under S. 196, Cr.P.C. not obtained for prosecution under S. 295-A, P.P.C.---Non-
association of private witnesses---Accused was alleged to have erected a barrier on the way leading to a place of
congregation and also installed a loud speaker upon which he was playing cassettes fomenting hatred against other
sects---Except for S.295-A, P.P.C. punishment provided for the remaining offences was less than 7 years, thus they
did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Prima facie requirement of S. 196, Cr.P.C. was not
fulfilled by the police/complainant before registering F.I.R. under S. 295-A, P.P.C.---State counsel admitted that no
sanction as envisaged under S. 196, Cr.P.C was obtained for the trial of present case under S. 295-A, P.P.C.---
Despite having advance information about the incident, no effort was made on part of the complainant/ police to
procure attendance of private persons to witness the incident---Accused was granted bail in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 1256 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case
Syed NAWAZ HUSSAIN VS State
1999 PCr.LJ 445, PLD 1972 SC 271, PLD 2005 Lah. 631,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--196 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--153-A ,
S. 153-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 8 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.196---Promoting
enmity between different groups, acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred---Prosecution for offences against
the State---In view of the sensitivity of the offence under S.153-A, P.P.C. and S.8/9 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
same had been held in law to be an offence against the State, instead of an offence against an individual though the
individuals also affect from commission of such nature of offences---Right of prosecution had been given to the
State instead of an individual in the general interest of the people---S.H.O., or the informant in the case had lodged
the First Information Report, who were not Central/Provincial Government, nor they were the persons duly
authorized for the purpose as envisaged under S.196, Cr.P.C.---Proceedings carried out by the court on that report
was coram non judice, ab initio void and nullity in the eyes of law---Accused were acquitted from the charges, in
circumstances.
9 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
Citation Name: 2013 YLR 1966 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case
ATTA-UR-REHMAN alias IBRAHIM alias UMAR alias TAHIR VS State
1989 MLD 1062, 2002 SCMR 820, 2002 YLR 2813, 2004 MLD 180, 2008 YLR 1755, 2009 PCr.LJ 619, 2011 SCMR
563, 2011 SCMR 593, PLD 2001 SC 546,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Explosive Substances Act 1908--3 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--337-F , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
Ss. 302(b), 337-F(iii), (v), (vi) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9(a)(c)(d)(h)---Explosive Substances Act
(VI of 1908), S.3---Qatl-e-amd, causing Mutalahimah, Hashimah, Munaqqilah, common intention, acts of terrorism,
and causing explosion---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 4 hours in lodging F.I.R. in heinous offence, was of no
consequence, specially when delay was properly explained---Names of accused persons having not been
mentioned in the F.I.R., no mala fide could be attributed to complainant---Eye-witnesses, who were injured in
incident, had fully supported the case of prosecution---Accused person along with companions made indiscriminate
firing upon Rangers Force, from automatic weapons and used hand grenade, which resulted murder of two
persons---Testimony of injured witnesses, in such act of terrorism, was to be kept on a high pedestal, as injured
witnesses would not in any case would substitute a wrong person for actual assailant---Eye-witnesses of the
incident, had no previous enmity with accused persons---Incident was day time occurrence and all the eye-
witnesses had clearly seen accused persons at the relevant time---Prosecution witnesses picked up both accused
persons in identification parade, and identified them in Trial Court---Delay in holding of identification parade would
not be fatal for the prosecution, when eye-witnesses of the incident had clearly identified that accused persons
present before the court were same---Evidence of Rangers personnel could not be disbelieved, simply because they
were members of Armed Forces---Eye-witnesses were natural and independent, and ocular evidence was fully
corroborated by medical evidence---Prosecution had proved the motive---Trial Court had properly assessed the
evidence and gave sound reasons---No reason was on record to disagree with the appreciation of evidence by Anti-
Terrorism Court---Manner and method of incident was heinous, shaking, involving terrorist act, creating panic to the
society as a whole, and penalty of death had rightly been awarded to accused persons by the Trial Court---No
mitigating circumstances existed in the case to convert the death penalty to the imprisonment for life, Judgment of
Anti-Terrorism Court, was maintained, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2009 PCrLJ 955 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case
SIKANDAR KHAN VS State
1994 PCr.LJ 186, 2005 PCr.LJ 53,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Appreciation of Evidence--
TERM , Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--22 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , West
Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,
10 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
Ss. 324/353/148/149---Anti-'Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7(b), 9(b) & 25---Offences Against Property
(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.22---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965),
S.13---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of arms and ammunitions were made from the possession of accused
persons which was duly witnessed by marginal witness of the recovery, who had fully supported the case of the
prosecution---All the prosecution witnesses had faced the test of lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but
nothing favourable to accused persons had come out from their mouths---Defence had failed to shatter the case of
the prosecution---Prosecution witnesses were all unanimous on all material points---Medical Officer who had
examined accused who resisted his arrest and during the scuffle between the Police party and accused had
sustained injuries, his medico legal report also supported the case of the prosecution---Both accused persons and
absconding co-accused had attempted to commit robbery and to loot the passengers sitting inside the Bus and they
had created terror and panic in the whole surroundings area---Empties had been recovered during the spot
inspection, which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and its report was in positive---Accused had
failed to produce any documentary proof with regard to the recovered arms and ammunitions---Accused were
reasonably linked with the commission of the offence charged with---Prosecution had been able to prove its case
against accused persons beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt---Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly
appraised the evidence brought on record---Impugned judgment of the Trial Court based on correct legal footings
and correct appraisal of evidence, could not be set at naught by High Court---Counsel for accused had failed to
point out any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence so as to create a dent in the case of the
prosecution, or legal infirmity, perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction which was accordingly maintained.
Qari KAFAIT ULLAH VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Benefit of Doubt--TERM ,
S. 9---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Allegation of publishing and distributing etc. pamphlets creating

sectarian hatred---F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of 5/6 days---Prosecution had not produced any publisher or
owner of the press to prove that the pamphlet in question was published in his press---No evidence had come on
record to show any sectarian hatred having taken place in the village because of such pamphlet---Investigating
Officer had stated that no criminal breach of peace had taken place---Despite the allegation that the accused had
been pasting such pamphlets on the walls of the village, Investigating Officer did not take any poster into
possession---No body had come forward to support the prosecution version---Complainant had neither mentioned in
the F.I.R. that he had received the pamphlet from the accused nor he stated so in the supplementary statement---
Accused had denied the allegation made in the prosecution evidence and had taken oath even in the Court that he
did not get the pamphlets printed, nor distributed the same nor pasted them on the walls of the village---Accused
was acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances.
FAYYAZ AHMED VS State
2007 SCMR 142, PLD 2005 SC 530,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--10 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Constitution of Pakistan
1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM ,
11 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
Ss. 7, 9 & 10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Authority of Public Prosecutor Anti-
Terrorism Court to decide the question of jurisdiction or applicability of the relevant section of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Scope---Offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was invoked by the police in the F.I.R. on the basis of
allegation of causing panic in the public---Petitioner/one of the accused persons challenged said invocation in
constitutional petition before High Court---During pendency of said petition, report under S.173 Cr.P.C. was
forwarded to the Public Prosecutor Anti-Terrorism Court who, after holding that facts of the case did not attract the
provisions of S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, directed Station House Officer to submit the challan to the District
Prosecutor after deleting the' offence under S.7 of the Act---Said order was challenged by the complainant in
constitutional petition---Validity---Section 9 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not authorize the Public Prosecutor to
delete the offence under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Public Prosecutor Anti-Terrorism Court had no
authority to assume and abdicate the function, authority and jurisdiction of the Trial Court to decide the question of
jurisdiction or applicability of the relevant section---Public Prosecutor,, Anti-Terrorism Court while passing the
impugned direction, had travelled beyond his jurisdiction and authority and had committed a grave illegality---
Impugned direction being without jurisdiction and legal authority, was quashed and set aside---Impugned
order/direction passed by the Public Prosecutor, was directed to be treated by the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court as a
report under subsection (7) of S.9 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.
Raja WAQAR AZIM VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--11-K , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 ,
----S. 497---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9/11---Bail, grant of---Neither the persons to whom the accused
had allegedly imparted offensive directions were mentioned in the record, nor the contents of the said directions
imparted to the unknown persons were mentioned therein---Nature and the offensive tenor of such directions,
therefore, could not be judged---Entire material against the accused was based on opinion and surmises---No
legally admissible material linking the accused with any defunct Organization or his terms with any terrorist had
been brought on the file---Sole statement of a sub-Inspector, which was merely expressive of his opinion, could not
make out a prima facie case against the accused---Allegations set up in the F.I.R. against the accused, thus,
needed further inquiry---Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
GHULAM SHABBIR VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--345 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--337-A ,
12 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
----Ss.302/149, 337-A(i)/149 & 148---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S.345---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Compromise---Legal heirs and Wali of the deceased and the
injured victims had compounded the offence with the accused on their behalf as well as on behalf of minors
voluntarily without any duress or coercion and had waived their rights of Qisas and did not claim Diyat---Minors were
entitled to the share of Diyat amount and their respective shares had been invested in Government Scheme of
DSCs with National Saving Centre which would be paid to them on their attaining majority---Legal heirs of the
deceased and the injured victims were accordingly` allowed to compound the offence with the accused in order to
maintain cordial relations and bury the hatchets forever--Accused were acquitted in circumstances.
GHULAM SHABBIR VS THE STATE
1969 SCMR 454, 1987 PCr.LJ 1689, 1991 SCMR 241,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--38 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 ,
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--334 ,
----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.
Citation Name: 2002 PCRLJ 1902 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case
BAHAWAL BAKHSH VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--114 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
13 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
----Ss. 302/34 & 114/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9--Appreciation of evidence---No conflict existed
between ocular account and medical evidence---Names of accused, weapon of offence carried by accused, role
played by accused and names of eye-witnesses were mentioned in the F.I.R.'with full description---Both complainant
and eye-witness being residents of place of occurrence, their presence at the spot was natural---Electric light at
relevant time was mentioned in the promptly lodged F.I. R.---No iota of evidence was on record suggesting or
proving that complainant had any enmity against accused to'falsely depose against them-- Accused remained
fugitive from law----Court had to see quality of evidence and not its quantity specially ocular account which in the
present case had come from unimpeachable source--Nothing was on record to show that eye-witnesses had told a
lie--Occurrence having taken place due to religious differences, case was fully covered by Preamble of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 and Special Judge constituted under. Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was fully competent to try the
offence---Prosecution had successfully proved motive of occurrence---Both parties being known to each other, no
question arose that of mistaken identity---Section 114, P.P.C. was also applicable in the case as occurrence had
taken place due to mischief played by accused who commanded the co-accused to commit murder of deceased and
co-accused did not fire only one shot, but repeated shot which resulted into death of the deceased---Prosecution
having been successful in proving its case against accused to its hilt through ocular account corroborated by
medical evidence and motive, conviction and sentence recorded against accused by Trial Court were maintained.
HABIB SAIN VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-A , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--295-B ,
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.295-A & 295-B---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.8/9---Ball---
Witnesses in their statements made under S.161, Cr.P.C. had made only allegations of general nature against the
accused and did not say anything specific against him---Main allegation against the accused was that he had given
"Taaviz" to the co-accused women who were on bail---Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. and he was not seen
doing anything at the alleged place of occurrence and also he did not seem to have any intention of committing an
offence as covered under Ss.295-B & 295-C, P.P.C. being under the influence of Hindu Culture and ignorant about
his own religion--Case of accused called for further inquiry in circumstances and he was admitted to bail
accordingly.
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD LATIF VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Constitution of Pakistan
1973--199 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--197 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--201 ,
14 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
----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.
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
15 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM
Federal
Punjab
KPK
Balochistan
Sindh
Copyrights © 2020 by Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)

This site is developed & maintained Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)
Help (/Login/HelpPage) FAQ's Sitemap
16 of 16 10/15/2020, 11:40 AM

Section 9

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 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.

Search in Staute -- Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-9

Enter Keyword Enter Court All Search

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-9

Your Search returned total 29 records from 0 - 29

Citation Name: 2020 MLD 1248 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

SHAHID HUSSAIN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1646 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

Qari MUHAMMAD ISHAQ GHAZI VS State

S. 9---Possession of pamphlets containing content inciting violence against a particular sect---Reappraisal of

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1646 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

Qari MUHAMMAD ISHAQ GHAZI VS State

S. 9---Possession of pamphlets containing content inciting violence against a particular sect---Reappraisal of

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1646 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

Qari MUHAMMAD ISHAQ GHAZI VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 920 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

ASIM NAWAZ alias KALEEM NAWAZ VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 920 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

ASIM NAWAZ alias KALEEM NAWAZ VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

WASIM ABBAS VS State

Ss. 9 & 11-W---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Suspension of execution of sentence---Scope---Release of

Head Notes Case Description

Mir NISAR HASSNAIN RAMAL VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 SCMR 560 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD NOMAN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 YLR 2394 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 YLR 2394 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 SCMR 787 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

JAVED IQBAL VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 SCMR 787 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

JAVED IQBAL VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Mulana MAQBOOL MIR VS State

Head Notes Case Description

State VS SUFI ALI

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 GBLR 137 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case

State VS SUFI ALI

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 1084 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

Malik MUHAMMAD ISHAQ VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 YLR 2134 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

RAZA MUHAMMAD SHAH VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Syed NAWAZ HUSSAIN VS State

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2013 YLR 1966 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

ATTA-UR-REHMAN alias IBRAHIM alias UMAR alias TAHIR VS State

Head Notes Case Description