Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus STATE

Articles 337A, 353, 504 and 34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), sections 2, 6, 7 and 25 appeal to the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, limiting instability and interfering with the duties of a public servant, I had no doubt. A minor injury by the accused and even a minor injury was inflicted on him by the employee, but such a move against the civil servant could not attract the definition of terrorism contained in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. There was no serious interference, serious disruption. Under section 2 (m) of the said Act, serious repression or threats or serious infringement against a public servant, the act expressly imposed by the accused, shall not be dangerous for the life and property of the circumstances, provisions of section 6 Applying (2), (m) and (n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, the question established under the Anti Terrorism Act 1997 appeared out of court, under which circumstances there was no jurisdiction to prosecute. The anti-terrorism court proceeded to complete the trial, including the complete lack of jurisdiction and cognizance in light of the material produced with the challan, and the trial court eventually ruled that the prosecution resulted in non-judicial proceedings. There were instabilities. The appeal of this decision cannot be sustained, in the light of the law and without the same void and no jurisdiction, in the case of strange facts and cases, the limit cannot be struck because no one against such order or decision. The limit will not go against the appellant's guilt. The accused and the non-appeals joint accused were excluded, including the judgment involved, the appeal was allowed jobs for fresh advocates from Patoki lawyer