MUHAMMAD BILAL ALIAS SULLEMAN versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
Sections 6 (2) (D), 6 (2) (EE), 7 (B) (FF), 17, 23 and 25 Panel Code (XLV of 1860), Section 507 Telegraph Act (1885) XIII), Section 25D Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional application by the Anti-Terrorism Court Scope Act to prosecute the possibility of death or endangering the life of a person, in which the act of terrorism The use of any explosive material, including the bombing, has been accused of anonymous communications with criminal threatening that Article 6 (2) (d) of section 17 of the Anti-Terrorism Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 And under section 6 (2) (e) Remember the terror of terrorism under the Terrorism Act after the prosecution was not able to punish the non-scheduled offense. , 1997 Not proven against the accused Only Section 507, PPC proved guilty of threatening criminals, authorizing the Anti-Terrorism Court to prosecute a non-scheduled crime with / without a scheduled offense. Was given. ) In the same trial under section 17 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 which did not authorize the Anti-Terrorism Court to hear the non-scheduled offense when the court stated that the Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 Non-scheduled issue is bound to move. Any court that has the jurisdiction to hear such a crime trial once constituted an opinion by the Anti-Terrorism Court has proved that the only crime against the accused has been proved in which section 507, P.P.C. Under criminal threat, the court should not have taken action under Section 23 to punish the accused. The Anti-Terrorism Act
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
