MUHAMMAD AMEEN versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, KARACHI
Section 384/386/506/511/34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 6 (1), 6 (2) (K) and Article 7 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Petition extortion, intimidating a person The extortion death or serious injury, the criminal threat, the joint intention, the demand for the extortion money (Bhutta) requesting the Anti-Terrorism Court to cancel the FIR and transfer the case, the dismissal of the charges against the accused persons was On several occasions he entered a factory and demanded that his owner be extortionate (kiln); that he had threatened to kill and burned the factory, and that he had given the factory to his workers. The lock had been evicted. The accused's speeches were that he was a member of the labor union and was involved in the case because of enmity. The Anti-Terrorism Act did not fall under the purview of Section 6 of the 1997 Act, so it should be transferred to a general court for the testimony of witnesses under section 161, in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses under Section 164 Fully certified in the FIR. The CRPC fully supported the FIR's significant allegations of extortion demand (extortion) and its non-compliance, indicating that the FIR showed that the defendants were armed with weapons. Entered the premises and demanded an allowance on several occasions and locked the factory. Its workers, which are linked to the definition of terrorism provided in Articles 6 (1) and 6 (2) (K) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. There is clearly a sense of fear or insecurity in the society against the accused persons, any previous hostility to the accused persons involved in the present case.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
