Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IKRAM versus JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT-I,

Sections 302, 380, 411 and 34 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6, 7 and 23 of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application from the Special Court to the transfer of the challan of common criminal jurisdiction to a court A woman and a child of 3/4 years of age were produced before a special court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the plea of the accused was filed by the Special Court on the basis of common crime. Appeal of a lawsuit filed for transfer to a court of jurisdiction. After the trial was dismissed, the defendant filed a constitutional petition against the dismissal order passed by the Special Court of Truth 6 (1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which provided a measure to determine whether Where designed to intimidate a criminal act or destabilize the minds of ordinary people, even disturbing the life and peace of society, which can be considered a terrorist act, common crimes are unnecessary. Matters were not to be dealt with. r The Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not the only criterion for determining the question of physical harm to the victims, which was to be seen as a psychological action created by violent action or the ability to produce such effects on the entire society. The effect was. Or in an area where a criminal act was devised to create a feeling of fear and insecurity in the minds of ordinary people, even disturbing the life and comfort of society, in the present day, it is terrified. Can be termed pollen incision. The matter took place indoors and a private purpose was also made in this case, although it was female advocates from Lakimarwat lawyer