Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TARIQ AZIZ and others VS Respondent: B.A. FAKHARI, JUDGE SPECIAL COURT, ANTITERRORISM, DERA GHAZI KHAN and others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Dr. Munir Ahmed Mughal, M. Javed Buttar Title:TARIQ AZIZ and others vs B.A. FAKHARI, JUDGE SPECIAL COURT,
ANTITERRORISM, DERA GHAZI KHAN and others Case No.: Writ Petition No,5031 of 1998 Date of Judgment:1998-06-16 Reported As: 1999 P Cr. L J 1335 Result: Writ petition dismissed Judgment ORDER ' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.--- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged assumption of jurisdiction of the trial of case F.I.R. No,203 of 1996, dated 6-11-1996 for the offences under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Chowk Sarwar Shaheed, Tehsil Kot Addit, District Muzaffargarh by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism established under t Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 on the ground that the offences as alleged in Arse F.I.R. Regarding the murder of one Head Constable was committed before enactment of the Act 27 of 1997 2. The petitioner's application challenging the jurisdiction of the Sped_: Judge has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge on 28-5-1998. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that t':e wore "committed after the commencement of this Act" as mentioned in clause (iii;) paragraph 2(a) of the Schedule to the above Act as amended - in, notification, dated 17-12-1997 are to be read in continuation of clay same paragraph. 4. The relevant portion of the paragraph 2(a)(ii) of the amended Schedule reads as under:-- "(2) Any offence punishable under any of the following sections of Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), namely--- (a) section 302--- (i) (ii) if the victim is member of police, armed forces or civil armed forces or is a public servant; or (iii) ..
---
## Page 2
5. The abovementioned shows that the above said case falls under the abovementioned paragraph 2(a)(ii) as the deceased was a public servant and the word "or" occurring in the last of sub-paragraph (ii) shows that sub paragraph (iii) is an independent paragraph and is not to be read as continua tic , ,subparagraph (ii), therefore, the Special Court has the jurisdiction to try those cases t falling for the offence under section 302, P.P.C. In which the deceased was a public servant even if the offence was committed before the commencement of this Act. Consequently, the petitioner's application challenging the jurisdiction of the Special Judge was correctly dismissed. 6. We see no merit in this case which is dismissed in limine. Writ