Mehboob Ahmad vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad Etc.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the refusal of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, to transfer a criminal case to an ordinary court. The petitioner, an accused in an F.I.R. involving offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 365-A, argued that the case should be tried by an ordinary criminal court because the specific offence under Section 365-A had been deleted at one stage before being re-added during re-investigation. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Terrorism Court correctly retained jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court had correctly determined that prima facie the offence under Section 365-A was attracted, there were no compelling reasons to interfere with the High Court's findings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts will not substitute findings of fact regarding the applicability of specific penal provisions unless there is a clear legal infirmity.
- Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try a case where an offence under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is prima facie attracted?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a High Court's finding regarding the applicability of a specific penal provision in the absence of compelling reasons?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 143, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 384, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 23, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
JUDGMENT FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J. - The petitioner is an accused in F.I.R. No. 410 registered for offences under Sections 365-A/148/149/143/384 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. 8754/2006 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 re-investigation. 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 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 petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.