Sections 4 and 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 7 and 19 (8B) of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicted of corroborating jurisdictional evidence, the lack of evidence of the police prosecutor's testimony to their clear and convincing evidence Throughout the crime police officers were unlawful witnesses against the accused and their evidence could not be excluded because of their affiliation with the police department alone. Due to the prevailing trend in the society, independent witnesses from the locality The non-submission was inconsistent. In such cases, the accused was arrested in the course of making bombs while avoiding his nose and a large quantity of explosive material was recovered from his possession, which was to be used in the bombings for which They were making preparations for the accused. The age of an accused in the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court was inconsistent with this question. Such jurisdiction is subject to the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if the court finds the offense permissible by it. Whereas, under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, the court will have jurisdiction, if the offenders are younger, irrespective of the nature of the crime. They had no benefit in accusing the fate of the four co-accused in the case, as the nature of the evidence in relation to the acquiring partner was quite different, if not more, within the 30's. If not received, legal approval is required. On the day of submission of the challan in the court, the same shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to the meaning of section 19 (8B) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
