Find a Lawyer

RIZWAN AHMED QURESHI versus THE STATE

ections Section 6 and 7A Panel Code (XLV of I860), Sections 353, 385, 386 and 34 Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), Section 25B - Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), Section 23 (i) A - Terrorism, extortion, extortion, arms recovery - Police confrontation - Evidence of evidence appreciation - The accused faced a lawsuit for demanding a kiln. Five years imprisonment - Handwriting on Bhat Bhatta slip was not conferred, voice was not identified ??? Confidential statements of accused persons were not on record accused The names of the accused were not mentioned in the FIR and they were not mentioned by the magistrate. Was to be presented. Identification parade was conducted but no such parade was held - the first information report stated that police confronted police and the accused for a few minutes, but the pool was not harmed. Neither the ice car nor any police personnel were hurt. fact Such a fact remains mysterious and has raised doubts about the prosecution. Police officials told various stories in their statements about raids, seizures, recovery and property and it could not be. Safe relief for the accused accused. ??? The prosecutor failed to prove his case against the accused and the trial court did not appreciate the evidence did The High Court sentenced and sentenced by the trial court and all the accused were acquitted - according to the appeal [ pp. 659, 660] A&B allowed

P L D 2017 Sindh 653 

Before Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Abdul Maalik Gaddi, JJ

RIZWAN AHMED QURESHI and others—Appellants

versus

THE STATE and others—Respondents

Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos.255, 256, 257, 260 and 261 of 2015, decided on 17th June, 2017.

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)—

—Ss. 6 & 7—Penal Code (XLV of I860), Ss. 353, 385, 386 & 34-Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S.25-B—Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(i)-A—Terrorism, Bhatta, Extortion, recovery of weapon—Police encounter—Proof—Appreciation of evidence—Accused persons faced trial for demanding Bhatta by issuing a slip to complainant and also made threatening telephone calls—Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court and sentenced variously maximum up to imprisonment for five years—Validity—Handwriting on Bhatta slip was not got matched not voice was identified—No confessional statements of accused persons was on record—Names of accused persons were not mentioned in the FIR and they were supposed to be produced before Magistrate for holding identification parade but no such parade was held—First InfÓrm;ation Report though showed that police encounter took place for few minutes in-between-police and accused persons but neither any damage was caused to the police vehicle nor any injury was caused to any police official—Such fact remained in mystery and created doubt in prosecution case—Police officials narrated different stories in their statements regarding alleged raid, seizure, recovery and property shown in Court and the same could not be safely relief upon for conviction of accused persons—Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons and Trial Court did not appreciate evidence properly—High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and all accused persons were acquitted of the charge—Appeal was allowed accordingly. [pp. 659, 660] A & B

Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—S. 439—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 353, 385, 386 & 34— Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S.25-B—Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(i)-A—Terrorism,

Bhatta, recovery of weapon—Supervisory jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope—Appeal, non-filing of—Benefit of doubt—Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced variously maximum up to imprisonment for five years but he did not assail his conviction and sentence—High Court acquitted co-accused persons who had filed their appeals—Validity—High Court, had control and superintendence over courts below and could exercise visitorial jurisdiction in respect of matters which did not fall under ambit of appeals—Revisional jurisdiction could be exercised by the High Court in respect of courts below in cases where appeal or leave to appeal was not to be filed—Such jurisdiction was very wide and could be exercised whenever facts calling for its exercise or brought to the notice of the Court, where the order of Trial Court was illegal and superficial based on misconception of law and facts and quite contrary—High Court could exercise jurisdiction to correct, manifest, illegal or to prevent gross miscarriage of justice—Jail authorities were directed to release the accused as his co-accused were also acquitted of the charge— Accused was also acquitted in circumstances. [p. 660] C

S. Rashid Ali for Appellants.

Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Abdul Razzak and Qadir Khan Mandokhel, Amici curiae.

Date of hearing: 16th June, 2017.

immigration advocates phone number from Wazirabad lawyer