MUHAMMAD AMIR and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the conviction or proceedings stemming from a trial. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised multiple contentions regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the competence of the appeal before the High Court, and the merits of the charges under Section 11 and Section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, specifically highlighting the absence of necessary ingredients for abduction and lack of supporting eye-witness testimony. The core legal questions involve determining whether the Special Court possessed proper jurisdiction without a framed charge under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the maintainability of the High Court appeal in light of legal and constitutional bars, and whether the evidence sufficed to sustain convictions under the relevant provisions of the Hudood Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider these questions in light of the applicable law and the record.
- Does a Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act have jurisdiction to try a case when no charge under the relevant section of the said Act has been framed?
- Whether an offence under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is made out when the abductee was neither enticed nor taken by deceitful means or force, and eye-witnesses to the abduction are not produced?
- Is an offence under Section 10(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 sustainable in the absence of cogent evidence supporting the charge?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(4), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' The learned counsel raised the following points for consideration:--
(i) The learned Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act had no jurisdiction to try this case, as besides the lack of jurisdiction even the charge under the relevant section of Anti- Terrorism Act had not been framed. The appeal before the High. Court was also not competent on this count as well as the clear bar in the relevant law and the Constitution.
(ii) The offence under section .11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, had not been made out against the petitioner because the record indicates that the abductee had neither been enticed, nor taken by deceitful means or force. Moreover, the eye-witnesses to the abduction were not produced to support the prosecution case on this point.
(iii) The offence under section 10(4) of the Ordinance is also not proved as there was no cogent evidence to support this charge.
2. ' Leave is granted to consider the above points in the light of the relevant law and the evidence on record.