Find a Lawyer

IFTIKHAR AHMAD versus SPECIAL COURT NO.1, LAHORE

Sections 6 (2) (m) (n), 7 and 23 Constitutional Rules (XLV of 1860), Sections 324, 224, 225, 353, 427, 148 and 149 Railway Act (IX of 1890), section 121 et 128 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Petition The petitioner / accused moved the order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, through which the court transferred the case to the General Court. Applicants for the application were dismissed, the co-accused were freed by the policemen who forcibly entered the train's bogey, which first caused people to be on the train. Gadget spread fear and terror. The contents of the FIR revealed that the offense was committed under Section 6 (2) (m) n of the Anti-Terrorism. The Act, 1997, was first prepared against the applicants; otherwise, after the arrest of the applicant, handcuffs were also recovered from his possession, and arms were also recovered from the other applicants. Irregularity was not impossible. The trial court passed the unconstitutional order, saying that the application was dismissed against any vacancy in the order, in the circumstances family advocate from Lala rukh lawyer