Sections 23, 6 and 7 of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149 and 364 of the application to transfer the case from the Anti-Terrorist Court to the Sessions Court, the nature of excluding the evidence of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses. The effect of the crime, not listed, was to cause the accused and co-accused to kill three people after their abduction at gunpoint in front of their relatives, the defendant's case that The present case was of previous enmity and personal enmity, therefore, there was no danger of being accused of crime, either in the public or in a part of society, nor in society at all. A feeling of betrayal or insecurity arose, under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the application for transfer of the case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to the Sessions of Court was rejected. During the day, the one-way and alleged reckless firing was made with the weapons of the Prohibition Bore, which was acknowledged after submitting an invoice to an anti-terrorist partner. The URT, the prosecution, did not inspect general, circumstantial, medical and expert witnesses, nor was any other material available to determine if there was any disturbance, fear and insecurity in people's minds, Therefore, the severity of the premature stage and the nature of the alleged crime cannot be determined if the pill taken by the accused may be aggravated and after the recording of evidence by at least two witnesses / stars by the prosecution. It could be decided and the accused was then free to file an application for transfer of the case from the Anti-Terrorism Court. Application in full jurisdiction court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
