ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus MASOOD AHMAD KHAN
ORDER
The relevant facts are that on the report of Ehsan Sheikh son of Rahim-ud-Din case F.I.R. No.8/92, dated 10-1-1992 under section 506, P.P.C. and 25/D of Telegraph Act was registered against Tariq Altaf petitioner at Police Station Islampura, Lahore on the allegation that he had made abnoxious calls to the-complainant's family and also issued threats to them.
2. After investigation, challan against the petitioner was submitted in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner applied for bail. The learned trial Court directed him to approach the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) as the offence under section 25, Telegraph Act was triable by the said Court. Later, learned Judge Special Court admitted him to bail.
3. During the pendency of the case before the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition stating that the offence under section 506, P.P.C. and section 25/D, Telegraph Act are not scheduled offences and as such are not triable by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities).
4. I have seen the schedule appended to Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. Section 506, P.P.C. is not at all mentioned therein. However, section 25 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 is included in the Schedule but it is different from 25/D of the said Act which provides punishment for intentionally damaging and tampering with telegraphs while section 25/D provides penalty for causing annoyance etc.
5. Section 25/D creates distinct offence and provides. a separate penalty as such it cannot be said that it is also covered by section 25. Likewise, there is no ambiguity about section 506, P.P.C. which is not at all mentioned in the Schedule. In these circumstances, the trial of the petitioner for the said offences by Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) is not justified at law.
I, therefore, grant the petition and direct the trial of the petitioner by an ordinary Court in accordance with law.
Record be sent back.
N.H.Q./T-70/L
Petition accepted.
Cited by 1 case
- SAFDAR IQBAL vs THE STATE 2000 PLD Lahore 50