MUHAMMAD HANEEF vs THE STATE
This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Haneef, who was tried and convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court for an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Terrorism Court possessed the jurisdiction to try the appellant, given that he was under eighteen years of age at the time of the alleged offence. The Court held that the trial conducted by the Anti-Terrorism Court was contrary to the mandate of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to Juvenile Courts for cases involving children. The Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge, acting as a Juvenile Court, for a fresh trial. The key principle laid down is that the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, excludes the jurisdiction of other courts, including Anti-Terrorism Courts, for the trial of an accused who is a child, defined as a person under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
- Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try an accused who is under eighteen years of age?
- What is the definition of a child under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
- Does the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 require the transfer of pending cases involving child offenders to a Juvenile Court?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 2(b), Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
- Section 4(3), Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
- Section 4(4), Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
' Muhammad Haneef appellant/accused was tried in case F.I.R. No,9 of 2000, dated 11-1-2000 registered under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Gulgasht, Multan by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,II, Multan, who convicted and sentenced the appellant to fourteen years' R.I. And whipping numbering 30 stripe on 28-2-2001. The appellant has challenged his afore-referred conviction and sentence through this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset, contends that according to the school leaving certificate, placed on the record, date of birth of the appellant is 3-4;1988 and the occurrence took place on 9-1-2000, as such on the day of occurrence, his age was eleven years, nine months and six days. He also contends that even in the police record, age of the appellant/accused is mentioned as 14 years on 9-1-2000, that the admitted position is that he was less than eighteen years of age on the day of occurrence and thus, could only be tried under Juvenile Justice System. Ordinance, 2000, enforced on 1-7-2000.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the State concedes that Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the accused being less than 18 years of age and that the competent forum, for the said purpose, is only Court of Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court under the afore-referred Ordinance.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. It is provided in subsection (3) of section 4 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, that the Juvenile Court shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to try cases in which a child is accused of commission of an offence. It is also mentioned in subsection (4) of section 4, referred above that subject to subsection (3) on commencement of this Ordinance, all cases pending before a trial Court in which a child is accused of an offence shall stand transferred to the Juvenile Court having jurisdiction. "Child" is defined under section 2(b) of the Ordinance (ibid) according to which, a person who at the time of commission of an offence has not attained age of 18 years, is child.
6. The afore-referred law excludes the jurisdiction of all other Courts for trial of an accused less than 18 years of age. No objection was raised by the accused or the prosecution side during trial. It was duty of the trial Court to see whether it was competent to try the child (appellant/ accused).
The trial held by the Anti-Terrorism Court is against the mandate of afore-referred Ordinance. The age of the accused, on the day of occurrence was admittedly less than 18 years, therefore, Anti- Terrorism Court was debarred under section 4(3) of Ordinance No,XXII A of 2000 to try the accused.
7. For the reasons, mentioned above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment, dated 28-2-2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,2, Multan is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Multan with powers of Juvenile Court for trial and decision of the case afresh in accordance with law. The appellant present in the 'Court, is directed to appear, before the learned Juvenile Court/Sessions Judge, Multan on 22-5-2002.
Cited by 3 cases
- YOUSUF KHAN vs The STATE 2013 YLR 1168
- ASADULLAH alias SHAKIRULLAH vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 1022
- MUHAMMAD NOMAN and another vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 1439