PERVAIZ IQBAL versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.III
Section 6, 7 and 23 of the Contempt of the Constitution (XLV of 1860), section 324/148/149/427/337A (i) / 337F (iii) / 337L (2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Qatl e. Efforts should be made between ambiguous, deadly weapons, upsetting constitutional petitions, acts of terrorism, the alliance's commitment to the act and the purpose or design by which this crime was committed. To form an opinion as to whether such a crime could be committed. Terrorism has been declared an act and in the absence of such coordination, it cannot be assumed that in the background of personal enmity or background, terrorism, terrorism or terrorism spread, this crime must But there was a terrorist act and the complainant and his accomplice were witnesses. During the investigation it was clearly stated that the accused in the FIR had a personal motive and that the crime was to be committed, hence the crime committed by them could not be termed a terrorist act. Transferring the terrorist court to a court of common jurisdiction on the request of the accused transferred under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was well argued and the constitutional application based on the relevant law Limit was excluded.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
