Find a Lawyer

Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975)‑‑

‑‑‑Ss. 3 & 4 (1), proviso (ii)‑‑Constitution and jurisdiction of Special Courts‑‑Notification under S. 4(1), proviso (ii) stating the names and the offences committed by accused, for which they should be tried, before their legal trial could be deemed competent, was not necessary.

The Government can constitute Special Courts, in which case all persons guilty of having committed the offences specified in the schedule to the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act, within the jurisdictions allocated to such Courts, can be exclusively tried by such Courts and that, under the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act, the Government can also constitute Special Courts to try special cases, that is to say, only such persons who have committed scheduled offences as may be specified in the notification. For example, under section 3(1) of Act XV of 1975, the four Provincial Governments have constituted various Special Courts to try cases committed within the specific areas allocated by them. Under section 3(1) of the said Act, the Federal Government has constituted a special Court consisting of the District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad, for the whole territory of Pakistan. By a contemporaneous notification issued under the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the said Act, the Federal Government has directed the said Special Court at Islamabad to try only the persons named in Case No. 50 of 1986, CC‑I, Karachi. Later, by a notification of 4th June, 1987, the Federal Government has also directed the said Special Court to also try the persons named in F.I.R. No. 93 dated 22nd November, 1985 registered at Police Station Margala, Islamabad. Thus, the Special Court at Islamabad has been specially directed to try the accused connected with the Pan American Airline's hijacking case and the Margala case, as special cases. The view that before the petitioners can be tried for any of the scheduled offences, a notification must issue under the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 4, stating their names and the offences committed by them, for which they should be tried, before their trial can be deemed competent, is not legal or correct. The persons are being tried for scheduled offences before the Special Court, which by notification has been properly constituted under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act. Where nothing was brought out by the petitioners to show that the constitution of the Special Court, was illegal in any way, there would be no defect in the proceedings against such persons.

Ghulam Bari Saleemi for Petitioners. Najim‑uz‑Zaman, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 10th June, 1986.

This is a revision petition filed by Shahid Nawaz and Dr. Tariq Javed, petitioners, against the order of the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Punjab, Lahore, dated 10‑5‑1987.

2. The brief facts leading up to this petition are that a large number of criminal cases stand registered against the petitioners and others in respect of offences specified in the schedule to the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, XV of 1975. In most of these cases challans have been sent to the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Lahore, and some to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Lahore. It is the case of the petitioners that the Special Court is not competently seized of the cases before it and has no jurisdiction to try the same, in the absence of separate notifications issued relative to each case under the second proviso to section 4 of Act XV of 1975, stating the names of the petitioners as the persons to be tried under the Act and specifically stating the offences for which they are to be tried. The petitioners allege that they moved an application under the said provision of law before the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Lahore, to restrain the Special Court from taking cognizance of the various cases against the petitioners, till a notification as required by the second proviso to section 4 of Act XV of 1975 was issued. However, the said application was rejected by the learned Special Court (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Lahore, on 10‑5‑1987. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have now come up in revision, which petition is now before me for disposal.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Advocate‑General, who appears on behalf of the State. Before dealing with this case, it is necessary to set down sections 3 and 4 of the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act, which are relevant:

"3. Constitution of Special Courts.‑‑(1) The Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute, for the whole or any part of Pakistan, Special Courts consisting of a person who‑‑

(a) has been or is, or is qualified for appointment as, Judge of a High Court; or

(b) has, for a total period of not less than three years exercised, whether continuously or not, the powers under the Code, of a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge.

I (2) If so directed by , the Federal Government, the Provincial Government shall constitute a Special Court or Courts each consisting of a person who is qualified under subsection (1) to be appointed as Special Court.

(3) A Special Court shall sit at such place as the Government constituting it may, by notification in the official ,Gazette, specify in this behalf.

(4) Jurisdiction of Special Court.‑‑(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the scheduled offences shall be triable exclusively by a Special Court:

Provided that this section shall not be construed to require the transfer to a Special Court of any case which may be pending in any Court immediately before the constitution of

the Court:

Provided further that the Government constituting a Special Court may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that the Special Court shall have jurisdiction to try only such persons who have committed scheduled offences as may be specified in the notification."

4. Reading both these sections together, it is obvious that the Government can constitute Special Courts, in which case all persons guilty of having committed the offences specified in the schedule to the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act, within the jurisdictions allocated to such Courts, can be exclusively tried by such Courts and that, under the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act, the Government can also constitute Special Courts to try special cases, that is to say, only such persons who have committed scheduled offences as may be specified in the notification. Here I may give one example. Under section 3(1) of Act XV of 1975, the four Provincial Governments have constituted various Special Courts to try cases committed within the specific areas allocated by them. Under section 3(1) of the said Act, the Federal Government has constituted a Special Court consisting of the District and Sessions A Judge, Islamabad, for the whole territory of Pakistan. By a comtemporaneous notification issued under the second proviso to

sub‑section (1) of section 4 of the said Act, the Federal Government has directed the said Special Court at Islamabad to try only the persons named in Case No.50 of 1986, CC‑I, Karachi. Letter, by a notification of 4th June, 1987, the Federal Government has also directed the said Special Court to also try the persons named in FIR No.93 dated 22nd November, 1985 registered at Police Station Margala, Islarrabad. Thus the Special Court at Islamabad has been specially directed to try the accused connected with the Pan American Airline's hijacking case and the Margala case, as special cases. The view of the learned counsel for the petitioners that before the petitioners can be tried for any of the scheduled offences, a notification must issue under the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 stating their names and the offences committed by them, for which they should be tried, before their trial can be deemed competent, is not legal or correct.

The petitioners are being tried for scheduled offences before the Special Court, which by notification has been properly constituted under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act. Nothing has been brought out by the learned counsel for the petitioners to show that the constitution of the Special Court, presided over by Mr. Nusrat Hussain Qureshi, is illegal in any way. There is, therefore, no defect in the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

M.B.A/S‑77/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.