ABDUL REHMAN alias ABRI and another vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal concerns the trial of appellants charged under Sections 302 and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court, operating under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, retained jurisdiction over the matter following legislative amendments. The court observed that Ordinance No. XXXIX of 2001 removed vehicle snatching from the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, requiring such cases to be transferred to the Sessions Court. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged incident involved a pistol, whereas the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 only covered incidents involving automatic or semi-automatic weapons at the time. Consequently, the court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The judgment set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the court of appropriate jurisdiction for retrial. Considering the appellants had already been in custody for over eleven years, the court granted them post-arrest bail pending the retrial, directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within one year.
- Does the use of a pistol in a murder case fall under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Should cases involving vehicle snatching be transferred from Anti-Terrorism Courts to Sessions Courts following the enactment of Ordinance No. XXXIX of 2001?
- Can an appellate court grant bail to appellants upon remanding a case for retrial due to lack of jurisdiction?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 39-B(2)(e), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
1. The appellants were tried under sections 302, 394 P.P.C. in Crime No,11/99 of Police Station Jhok Sharif Thatta. However, during the pendency of the trial amendment in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was, brought about through Ordinance No, XXXIX of 2001, which took , out offence of vehicle snatching out of the ambit of the offence covered under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Hence all such cases in terms of section 39-B(2)(e) were to be transferred to the respective Courts of the Session of the area. This has been held in the case of "Ghazi Khan v. The State" reported PLD 2003 Karachi 71 and similar view has been taken in subsequent case reported in PLD 2005 Karachi 18. We have also noted that at the time of alleged incident of murder only such cases were covered under Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 in which automatic and semi-automatic weapon are used. In the present case Pistol was used in the commission of the murder.
2. Hence on both these grounds the matter ought has been transferred to the Sessions Court of the area for its trial. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and remand the case to the Court of appropriate jurisdiction for its trial.
3. We are shown the Jail Roll which shows that appellants are in custody for about 11 years and 15 days. This period do not take into account remissions. Learned A.P.-G. upon inquiry states that a period about 6 years remission has been granted during the period when the appellants were in custody. Keeping in view the long sentence that the appellants have undergone and on the point of jurisdiction the matter is to be referred back to the Court having jurisdiction for retrial, we therefore, grant bail to the appellants upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two lacs only) and P.R Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court. The trial Court shall conclude the trial within a period of one year.