THE STATE Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR ABID
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the trial of the respondent before a Special Court to be without lawful authority. The respondent was accused of offences under section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 25-D of the Telegraph Act 1885, involving alleged trespass into the residence of a police officer and making harassing telephone calls. The core legal question was whether the Special Court, established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, possessed the requisite jurisdiction to try the respondent for these specific offences. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of Special Courts is strictly confined to the offences enumerated in the Schedule to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975. Since the offences charged were not included in said Schedule, the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the trial was coram non judice, and dismissed the State's petition for leave to appeal.
- Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 have jurisdiction to try offences not listed in the Schedule to that Act?
- Is the trial of an accused for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Telegraph Act 1885 by a Special Court valid if those offences are not included in the Schedule of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 25-D, Telegraph Act 1885
- Section 3, Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.--- Muhammad Tahir Abid, respondent No. 1, is being accused of offences under section 452, Pakistan Penal Code, and section 25-D, Telegraph Act, for trespassing into the house of a prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police and making obnoxious telephonic calls to a female servant of the latter. The local investigating agency submitted the challan in the Court of Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorists Activities) Faisalabad. respondent No.1 filed a Constitution petition in the High Court calling in question the competence of the Special Court to try him on the abovementioned charges. A learned Single Judge accepted the petition and held that the trial of respondent No.1 by the Special Court was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The State seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. The Special Courts have been create by section 3, Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. the extent of their jurisdiction is set out in the Schedule which forms part of the said Act. The offence under section 452 and section 25-D, ibid, are not included in the Schedule. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the trial of respondent No.1 by the Special Court was without jurisdiction. This petition is clearly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
A.A./S-915/S Leave refused.