TAHA vs THE STATE

ORDER

The applicant has sought quashment of proceedings in Special Case No,201 of 1999 (State v. Taha) pending in Anti-Terrorism Court No,IV Karachi under section 302/353/324/34, P.P.C., arising out of F.I.R. No,212 of 1998 of Police Station Liaquatabad.

2. The applicant moved an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. In the trial Court for release of applicant in the above stated Special case on the ground that the case was already decided in which co-accused Faisal, Razzak, Imran and Junaid were convicted. The case of present applicant was separated as being juvenile offender. However in appeal death sentence of accused Junaid alias K-2 was converted into imprisonment for life, and the remaining accused viz. Muhammad Faisal Razzak and Imran were acquitted.

3. The trial of present accused could not be completed and during pendency of trial the said application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Was moved.

4. It is pleaded that case of the present applicant/accused is same as that of the acquitted accused and that his name does not appear in the F.I.R. Learned counsel at the very out set was confronted with the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which clearly puts bar on the release of accused under certain sections of Cr.P.C. Including 561-A, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has contended that subsection (3) of section 30 confers power on this Court to quash the proceedings under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. According to him the powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by this Court and the proceedings can be quashed and the accused may be released.

5. We are of the view that powers under section 561-A are not available with this Court to quash the proceedings and thereby release accused or acquit them under subsection (3) of section 30 of the Act. Section 30 of Anti-Terrorism Act reads as under:-- "(30) Modified application of certain provisions of the Code. --- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law, every schedule offence shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (f) of section 4 of the Code and the words "cognizable case" as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly.

(2) Section 347 to 379 of the Code shall apply in relation to a cause involving a scheduled offence subject to the modification that the references to a "Court of Sessions" wherever occurring therein, shall be construed as reference to an Anti-Terrorism Court.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 439, 491, 496, 497, 498-A and 561-A of the Code, no Court other than an Anti-Terrorism Court shall have the power or jurisdiction to grant bail to, or otherwise release, an accused person in a case triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court.

(4) Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the powers of the Presiding Officer of the Special Court to call any witness as is available under the law."

6. Subsection (3) of section 30 is very clear on the point that no Court other than Anti-Terrorism Court shall have the power or jurisdiction to grant bail to or otherwise release an accused person in case triable by the Special Court.

7. In view of the above legal position we are of the considered view that this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not competent to set aside the impugned order passed on application under section 265-A, Cr.P.C. And quash proceedings and thereby release the accused in case triable by Anti-Terrorism Court. In this regard a Division Bench of this Court, comprising both of us has already decided the similar point in an unreported case of (State v. Shamsur Rehman alias Shamsoo) Special Anti-Terrorism Revision No,26 of 1999. The only order challengeable are the judgment of conviction and the judgment of acquittal and all other orders passed by Anti- Terrorism Court are final.

8. For the foregoing reasons, stated above this Cr. Misc: No,505 of 1999 merits no consideration and is hereby dismissed.