Syed SALEEM SHAH vs STATE and others
This matter concerns a criminal revision petition filed against an order dated 16.1.2019 passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court, which dismissed the petitioner's applications for the addition of a charge under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and for the summoning of two Investigating Officers in a case involving FIR No. 247/2014. The core legal question addressed is the maintainability of a revision petition or writ petition challenging interim orders passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court, particularly in light of conflicting judgments from two Full Benches of the Lahore High Court. The Court observed that there is a divergence of opinion between the judgment dated 31.5.2018 passed by the Multan Bench and the judgment dated 6.7.2018 passed by the Principal Seat regarding the appropriate forum and procedure for challenging such interim orders. Consequently, the Court held that it is appropriate to transmit the petition to the Principal Seat and place the matter before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench to resolve the conflicting precedents and settle the legal position on the maintainability of such challenges.
- Is a revision petition maintainable against an interim order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
- How should a court proceed when faced with conflicting judgments from two Full Benches of the same High Court regarding the maintainability of a petition?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 297, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 336-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
During, trial of case FIR No, 247/2014 dated 01.05.2014, under Sections 302/436/297, PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Luddon, District Vehari, the petitioner moved applications for addition of charge under S. 336-B, PPC and for summoning of two Investigating Officers. The learned trial Court dismissed the above mentioned applications vide order dated 16.1.2019.
2. The petitioner filed the instant criminal revision for the redress of his grievance. Office raised an objection regarding maintainability of the revision petition in view of the judgment dated 31.5.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court- at Multan Bench in Crl. Revision No, 417/2006.
3. The Office objection regarding mainta inability of the instant petition was taken up on the judicial side. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court at The Principal Seat vide judgment dated 6.7.2 018 passed in writ petition No, 9027/2017 held otherwise. The judgment s of the two Hon'ble Full Benches of this Court are divergent on the point of maintainability of revision petition/writ petition regarding interim orders passed by the Anti-T errorism Court.
4. In view of the above, it would be appropriate that this petition be transmitted at the Principal Seat and the matter may be laid before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate order/ constitution of larger Bench.