UMER FAROOQUE versus JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, MIRPURKHAS
Sections 6, 7 and 23 of the Constitutional Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 324, 337F (II), 337H (2), 364, 147, 148 and 149 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution Petition of Terrorism, Qatl. E-AMD, attempt to commit murder, misdemeanor, causing harassment or neglect, murder, rioting, abduction or abduction for a joint object Appeal court on both sides under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 Demand to move to In a general anti-terrorism court session, the FI Rupees' list was denied and special reference by the Anti-Terrorism Court Judge to the enforcement of the Anti-Terrorism Court Judge. Was not given. There was no effect of the Terrorism Act, 1997, whether the incident targeted terrorism and created a feeling of insecurity in the public, nothing was reported by the complainant in both the FIs. , Which may suggest that the alleged nightmare incident, large numbers of people around, witnessed a sense of terror and insecurity in the public or in the community, because no one Deadly weapons - Kalashnikov and Repeater were not used to money in the FI. During Matt's approval, he also failed to test whether there was any nexus with the alleged offense for the purpose of the trial under Sections 6, 7, 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, a 1997 anti-terrorism court judge. There was no record of the gravity of the alleged crime and the detriment of the alleged crime, nor was there any reason behind the alleged crime.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
