UMAR AFZAL versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.2, RAWALPINDI
Sections 7, 2, 4 and 14 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 12 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Section 302/365 A / 377/109 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Petition under the Anti-Terrorism Court. The disapproval order was denied by the juvenile court to return the accused's case, on the basis that he had a jurisdiction to prosecute the accused. The Waldetti Juvenile Court is only competent to determine the age of the accused under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. One of the disputes, as in the present case, and the Anti-Terrorism Court, again, had no jurisdiction to determine their age, which also indicated that in the case of a minor / minor age. Only the juvenile court needs to be prosecuted. The same personnel of sections 2 (b), 2 (e), 2 (f) and 4 (3) of the Judicial Justice System Ordinance, 2000 made it clear that any offense under any law, including the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 Is. , It was a crime under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 could be prosecuted under the Minor Counter Terrorism Act, 1997, but after the enactment of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, its section 4 (3) was beyond that jurisdiction. That happened and now every case in which a child is charged. For a crime, the Juvenile Court has a special hearing. According to section 14 of the said ordinance, nothing other than the provisions of the ordinance was insulted, but it was stated that the section could not be read. In isolation, but it is required to comply with the provisions of Sections 2 and 4 of the Ordinance Special Court established under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
