Find a Lawyer

KETNO versus JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, SPECIAL COURT FOR ATA

Sections 2 (b), 4, 5, 6 and 14 of the Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 6 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Petitions demanding the separation or separation of minor accused from the adult co-accused. Went to the co-accused on the grounds that he was a minor and could not be jointly prosecuted with the co-accused who had adult persons in them, the applicant was examined by the Board of Medical Officers. And after the physical, chemical and radiological examination he issued the certificate. That the age of the accused was 15 to 17 years. The applicant had also submitted her school leaving certificate, which was 16 years old. In the history of the alleged incident, the petitioner's request was resisted because the applicant is facing trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court, their application of the Sindh Children's Act, 1955 as well as the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 was nowhere in sight. Specifically, it was provided that the Juvenile Courts, created under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, have jurisdiction to hear the case of the child, which was sent under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the Juvenile Justice System. The jurisdiction of section 4 of the Ordinance was not vacated. , 2000 showed that the Anti-Terrorism Court was not designated as the Juvenile Court Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the provisions of the Judicial Justice System Ordinance did not have much effect, the lower Court of Justice established in 2000 And its powers were delegated to the presiding officers. The complainant says the court patent advocate from Cherat lawyer