Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE STATE VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD TAHIR ABID
1996 S C M R1972
1996 S C M R1972
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Saad Saood Jan, Actg. C.J. and Manzoor Hussain Sial, J
THE STATE---Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD TAHIR ABID and another---Respondents
Civil Petition No.662-L of 1993, decided on 1st June, 1994.
(On appeal from `the judgment dated 9-2-1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.4394 of 1991)
Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975)---
----S. 3---Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885). S.25-D---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.452---Offences against accused (respondent) under S.452, Penal Code, 1860 and S.25-D, Telegraph Act, 1885---Challan submitted before Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) ---Competence of Special Court to try such offences called in question by accused in Constitutional petition---High Court maintained that trial of accused by Special Court was without lawful authority and of no legal effect---Validity---Offence under S.452 Penal Code and S.25-D Telegraph Act, 1885 being not included in the Schedule which formed part of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, High Court was right in holding that trial of accused by Special Court was without jurisdiction-- Petition for leave to appeal being misconceived, leave was refused.
Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao
Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 1st June, 1994
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.---Muhammad Tahir Abid, respondent No. 1, is being accused of offences under section 452, Pakistan Penal Code, and section 25-D, Telegraph Act, for trespassing into the house of a prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police and making obnoxious telephonic calls to a female servant of the latter. The local investigating agency submitted the challan in the Court of Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorists Activities) Faisalabad. respondent No.1 filed a Constitution petition in the High Court calling in question the competence of the Special Court to try him on the abovementioned charges. A learned Single Judge accepted the petition and held that the trial of respondent No.1 by the Special Court was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The State seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. The Special Courts have been create by section 3, Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. the extent of their jurisdiction is set out in the Schedule which forms part of the said Act. The offence under section 452 and section 25-D, ibid, are not included in the Schedule. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the trial of respondent No.1 by the Special Court was without jurisdiction. This petition is clearly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
A.A./S-915/S Leave refused.