Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL

Sections 526 of the Criminal Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302 and 324/34 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 (d) of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 6 of the Terrorism Act and the Counter Jurisdiction Terrorist Court If an offender intends to commit terrorism in public or in a segment of the public, he commits the default offense, only then will he be subject to the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. Determine if a crime falls within someone. The purpose of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is to look at the FIR, the record of the case and the allegations made in the surrounding circumstances, whether or not a particular act was a terrorist act, motive, motive, design. And the purpose behind this was to see if it was said that this act created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public or in any section of the public or society or in any community in the present case. Has been charged because he has disclosed the facts of past hostility and private retaliation cases that the victim has applied for the sprinkling of souls. Was within the confines of the Hindu home and was not subjected to terrorism to create a sense of panic. No people or any section of the public was made comprehensible in the FIR and on the record of this case, the petition for transfer of the case to the Anti-Terrorism Court filed under Section 52626 was dismissed. Was done, under the circumstances law firms from Baroute lawyer