Find a Lawyer

RAHEELA NASREEN versus STATE

Section 6 (b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (XLV of the Conduct Rule), Sections 302/2011/34 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 199 and 185 (3) on the constitutional petition before the High Court petitioner's husband Was charged with murder. (A present Army service officer) appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge with the consent of his Batman Chalan, from where he was transferred for trial in the Anti-Terrorism Court, the High Court transferred the petitioner. The constitutional petition filed against the order was dismissed on the grounds that if there was a Batman, a trusted officer employed by an army officer killed his master with the consent of the master's wife, the terror of the incident. Occurring which causes a sense of insecurity among Army officers in the meaning of Section 6 (b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 The petitioner was that none of the members of the Armed Forces made the statement that the alleged act either created a feeling of insecurity or that terrorism was likely. Regardless of the determination of the question, whether a particular act falls within the scope of a provision of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, it was not necessary to record the evidence of witnesses to prove that the incident did in fact create terrorism or emotion. What was The question regarding the enforcement of the provisions of the Insecurity Act was to take into account the facts imposed in the FIR and other attendance situations. According to Section 6 (b) of the Act, it was not necessary that the alleged crime was in fact the cause of terrorism. On the contrary, its need will be substantially satisfied, so if people have a feeling of terror or fear and insecurity, then yes. law firms from Hala lawyer