Jahangir Khan vs Khalid Latif
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case where the petitioner and other accused, disguised in police uniforms, allegedly kidnapped a couple, robbed them of cash and gold, and attempted to transport them before being intercepted by the Highway Patrolling Police. A case was registered under various penal provisions, including Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and submitted to the Anti-Terrorism Court. The trial court initially remitted the case to the regular jurisdiction, but this decision was reversed by the High Court. The petitioner challenged the High Court's reversal, arguing that the allegations did not constitute an offense under Section 365-A. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined leave to appeal, holding that the High Court correctly left the determination of the appropriate jurisdiction to be decided after the prosecution witnesses' statements are recorded. The Court emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction could be re-agitated by the accused at a later stage based on the evidence, and found no jurisdictional error in the High Court's approach.
- Whether a case involving kidnapping and robbery under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 must be immediately remitted to regular courts before recording prosecution evidence?
- Can the question of jurisdiction between an Anti-Terrorism Court and a regular court be re-agitated by the accused after the recording of prosecution witnesses' statements?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Petitioner is amongst the, array of accused, who allegedly kidnapped Khalid Latif respondent along with his wife while the family was on way to Murree. The accused were clad in police uniform and ostensibly arrested and handcuf fed the respondent for being an accused in some criminal case registered at Jhelum; they snatched valuables that included cash and gold ornaments. On way to Jhelum, the accused attempted to shift the respondent after crossing Mandra Toll Plaza when a contingent of Highway Patrolling Police was attracted to the scene and rescued the family , however , . the accused managed to escape with the loot. A criminal case vide FIR No.249 was registered at Police Station Westridge Rawalpindi under various penal provisions that included section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, on the basis whereof, a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was submitted in an Anti-T errorism Court at Rawalpindi.
The accused motioned for remission of the case into regular jurisdiction, a request conceded vide order dated 4.5.2018 by the learned Special Judge Anti-T errorism Court-II Rawalpindi, however , reversed vide impugned order dated 12.3.2020, vires whereof, are being assailed on the ground that the learned trial Judge had rightly remitted the case for trial in regular jurisdiction as the accusation even if admitted as gospel truth fails to disclose mischief of section 365-A of the Code, an of fence exclusively triable by an Anti Terrorism Court.
2. Heard.
3. We have gone through the record annexed with the petition and do not consider it expedient to comment on the merits of the case lest it may cast its shadow upon the outcome of the trial. The High Court has discreetly attended the controversy leaving the fate of the case to be finally decided after recording statements of the prosecution witnesses, a course wisely suggested in the face of accusations leveled by the couple who allegedly endured the ordeal, with an option to the accused to re-agitate the issue afresh on the basis thereof, if need be. View taken by the High Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or flaw and, thus, calls for no interference. Petition fails.
Leave declined.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Spl. Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-III, Lahore etc 2022 LHC 3870, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 187, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1402
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-III, Lahore and 5 others 2023 PCRLJ 662