Find a Lawyer

TAJ MUHAMMAD versus JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT

Sections 353/186, 379, 337A (ii) and 337L (2) of the Electricity Act (IX of 1910), Section 39A of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6, 7 and 23 of Pakistan (1973) Determining the jurisdiction of a court established under Article 199 Constitutional Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the question of factors related to the jurisdiction of the Special Court was to be considered not only in regard to the allegations contained in the FIR. But the facts of the case should be considered as well. The convicts who came forward to investigate such a case were convinced that the allegations contained in the FIR and the facts of the case that came up during the investigation of the case clearly show that there was no terrorism involved in the case. Therefore, a court had no jurisdiction to hear a case constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and it moved its case against the Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 23 of the Act under a common law. Demanded to be transferred to court. There was no serious incident of repetition and push, rupture, or palm-pie in the area that prompted anything other than the appearance, which was given a ring by the party complaining of a serious terrorism issue. That are on the record. In the present case, they were proving the fact that the complaining party had exaggerated a little in the FIR and tried to exacerbate and aggravate the seriousness of the incident so as to attract the jurisdiction of the court. The High Court accepted the circumstances under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, framed under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and this order immigration advocates phone number from Yazman Mandi lawyer