MEHBOOB AHMAD vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
The petitioner, an accused in an FIR involving offences under sections 365-A, 148, 149, 343, 384, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner sought the transfer of his trial from the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, to an ordinary criminal court, arguing that the offence under section 365-A had initially been deleted and the challan submitted before a Judicial Magistrate, only to be re-added during reinvestigation. The Supreme Court examined the record and upheld the High Court's finding that, prima facie, the offence under section 365-A was attracted, thereby justifying the Anti-Terrorism Court's assumption of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of compelling reasons to interfere with the High Court's findings, the impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that the trial should proceed before the Anti-Terrorism Court.
- Does the re-addition of an offence under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during reinvestigation necessitate the transfer of a case from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary criminal court?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's finding regarding the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court if no legal infirmity is demonstrated?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 343, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 384, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 23, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner is an accused in F.I.R. No,410 registered for offences under sections 365-A/ 148/149/343/384 and 34, P.P.C. He is being tried by the Anti- Terrorism Court, Faisalabad. He moved an application under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of the case to an ordinary Court which was declined. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No,8754 of 2006 which was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide impugned judgment, dated 5-10-2006.
2. The learned counsel argued that at one point of time the offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. Was deleted and the challan was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate. However, section 365-A, was added during the course of reinvestigation. Therefore, it was fit case for trial by an ordinary criminal Court which had taken cognizance of the offence.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and have also perused the available record.
The High Court came to the conclusion, after going through the material placed before it, that prima facie the offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. Was attracted. Therefore, the Anti-Terrorism Court had justifiably assumed the jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the High Court need not be substituted by us in the absence of any compelling reasons. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this IB petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.