Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 3390
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Spl.Anti.Ter.A. 4/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - NAWAZISH AKBAR (RTD.MAJOR) S/O MEERE AKBAR (Appellant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 3390. In this matter between Spl.Anti.Ter.A. 4/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - NAWAZISH AKBAR (RTD.MAJOR) S/O MEERE AKBAR (Appellant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Spl.Anti.Ter.A. 4/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2025 SHC KHI 3390 PARTIES: NAWAZISH AKBAR (RTD.MAJOR) S/O MEERE AKBAR (Appellant) ORDER DATE: 25-AUG-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Fiaz Ul Hassan Shah(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ Page 1 of 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Present
Mr. Justice Omer Sial Mr. Justice Dr. Syed Fiaz ul Hassan Shah
Spl. Crl. Anti-Terrorism Appeal No.04 of 2025 Spl. Crl. Anti-Terrorism Appeal No.06 of 2025
Appellant : Nawazish Akbar (Rtd. Major) S/o Meer Akbar [in Appeal No.04/2025] through Mr. Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar, Advocate
Appellant : Naveed Hafeez S/o Muhammad Hafeez Khan [in Appeal No.06/2025] through Mr. Abdul Baqi Lone, Advocate
Complainant : Dil Nawaz S/o Ameer Azam Khattak through Mr.Muhammad Fahad, Advocate
State : through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Date of Hearing : 12.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 25.08.2025
J U D G M E N T
Dr. Syed Fiaz ul Hasan Shah, J – By this common order, we intend to dispose of both the Spl. Crl . Anti -Terrorism Appeals filed by the appellants, who were aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 31.12.2024 passed by learned Judge, Anti -Terrorism Court No.XVI, Karachi [Trial Court] in New Special Case No.10/2022 under FIR No.280/2007 registered U/s 365- A, 392, 506 -B, 34 PPC R/w Section 7 ATA, 1997 of PS Al -Falah, Karachi, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 265 -H(2) Cr.P.C, as under:- a) For offence of abduction for ransom, punishable under section 365 - A r/w 34 PPC both the appellants Naveed Hafeez S/o Muhammad Hafeez Khan and Nawazish Akbar S/o Meer Akbar are sentenced to
Page 2 of 17
imprisonment for life and their properties are ordered to be forfeited to the Government.
b) For the offence of wrongfully confining the abduct ee Sher Bahadur for a period of 5 to 6 months for ransom amount and for transfer of shares/property, and committing an offence punishable under section 347 r/w 34 PPC both the appellants are awarded imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1 00,000 (Rupees one lac) each.
c) For the offence of kidnapping of the abductee Sher Bahadur for ransom, and committing an offence punishable under section 7(e) of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997, both the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for life and th eir properties are ordered to be forfeited to the Government.
d) For the offence of robbery of car AJD -211 Honda of complainant party (at the time of kidnapping) both the accused found guilty for committing an offence punishable under section 397 PPC are sentenced to imprisonment for seven years.
e) All the property of both the accused persons as defined in section 02(p)(a) of ATA 1997 are also directed to be forfeited as provided under section 7 (2) of ATA 1997.
f) Benefit of Section 382 -B Cr.P.C is, however, extended to the appellants and the sentences awarded to them are ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.12.2007 at about 1840 hours, the complainant Dil Nawaz lodged the instant FIR stating that his brothers na mely Sher Bahadur the owner of Ocean Construction Company, had admitted accused Nawazish Akbar (Rtd Major) as a 5% partner in his company. Later on, differences arose between them. Eventually, they reached a compromise, in which the accused, Nawazish Akba r, provided a written condonation (Iqrarnama) with an assurance to settle the outstanding amounts. Despite this, he failed to honour the agreement and allegedly began threatening Sher Bahadur with dire consequences. On 19.06.2006, when the complainant and his brothers including Sher Bahadur were returning from Malir Court, Karachi, in their Honda VTI car No.AJD-211; at around 12:00 noon, the accused Nawazish
Page 3 of 17
Akbar, Haji Zaman, Amir Khan, Fareed Ahmed, Naveed, and Nadeem came there in jeeps, intercepted them and they pulled them out from their car and took his brother Sher Bahadur along with the above car, stating that they had financial disputes with him and would release him after resolving the issues (Hisab Kitab). They also threatened to kill the comp lainant and his brother if they attempted to follow them. Subsequently, their mother moved multiple applications to various stakeholders including superior courts regarding the incident of kidnapping. The kidnappers continued to issue threats to them over the phone. Subsequently, on the directions of the court, the FIR was lodged against the accused persons for the above crimes, accordingly. 3. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellants. The trial Court framed the Cha rge against the Appellants as Exh.4 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial vide their pleas as Ex.4/A to Ex.4/B. At the trial, the prosecution has examined complainant PW -1 Sher Bahadur Khan, a businessman at Ex.5, who produced memorandum and relevant certificates at Ex -05/P-01 to P -18, NOC from Gawadar Development Authority at Ex -05/P-19 to P -21, FIR No.489/2005 of PS Ferozabad at Ex - 05/P-22, Iqrarnama of accused at Ex -05/P-23, letter and application for FIR No.284/2016 at Ex-05/P-24 to P-27, newspapers cutting at Ex -05/P-28 to P-29, FIR of the instant crime at Ex -05/P-30, bank statement at Ex -05/P-31 to P -39, memo of Suit No.1605/2007 at Ex -05/P-40 to P -207, notice published in Daily Intakhab at Ex -05/P-208, petition filed in year 2008 at Ex -05/P-209 to P -283, order of High Court dated 17.04.2014 at Ex -05/P-284 to P -285, copy of CP No.2837/2014 at Ex -05/1-286 to P -341, cutting of newspapers for accused at Ex-05/P-342, agreement of partnership of Nawazish (Accused) and his wife at Ex-05/P-343 to P-354, mutation of record for land transfer as Ex -05/P-355 to P- 358, bank statement regarding encashment of fake cheque at Ex -05/P-359, civil suit for cancellation of agreement at Ex -05/P-360 to P -568, CP for order for transfer of case to ATC at Ex -05/P-569 to P -719, letter to Incharge Security
Page 4 of 17
Exchange, SECP, Karachi for verification of the documents of the company at Ex-05/P-720 to P -727, photographs of place of abduction at Ex -05/P-729 to P - 732. PW-02 Dil Nawaz Khattak (brother of abductee) at Ex -07 who produced applications to different stackholders with TCS receipts at Ex -07/P-01 (20 leafs), FIR No.280/2007 at Ex -07/P-02, memo of inspection of place of abduction/occurrence at Ex -07/P-03. PW -03 Nadeem Khan (Rickshaw driver/brother in law of abductee) at Ex-08, who produced memo of place of occurrence (payment of ransom amount) at Ex -08/P-01 and photographs at Ex - 08/P-02. PW -04 Inspector Rana Waqeel Ahmed at Ex -09, who produced departure entry of place of occurrence at Ex -09/P-01. PW -05 Shahzad Khan, businessman/brother of abductee at Ex -10. PW-06 Inspector Amjad Yameen at Ex-12, who produced entry of recording statement of abductee at Ex -12/P-01, order of investigation at Ex -12/P-02, entry of adding section of ATA at Ex - 12/P-03, entry of departure at Ex -12/P-04, memo of arrest of accused Naveed Hafeez at Ex -12/P-05 and misc. entries at Ex -12/P-06 to P -09. APG for the State submitted an application to give up PW Umer Zada at Ex.11 and thereafter the prosecution closed its side vide statement at Ex.13. The Appellants have recorded statement being accused persons under Section 342 Cr.P.C. at Ex.14 and 15. Both the Appellants/Accused have denied the allegation levelled against them and stated to be innocent and prayed for justice. However, neither the appellants examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and appraisal of the evidence, convicted and sent enced both the appellants vide Judgment dated 31.12.2024. 4. We have heard the learned cou nsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Addl. P.G. and with their assistance meticulously perused the record. 5. The pivotal legal issue for determination in the present appeal revolves around the validity of the c onviction awarded under Section 7(e) of the Anti -Terrorism
Page 5 of 17
Act, 1997 (ATA) by the learned trial court, and whether such conviction is sustainable in law. It is imperative to examine whether the essential ingredients of Section 365 -A of the Pakistan Penal C ode, 1860 (PPC) have been duly satisfied to warrant a simultaneous conviction under both statutes . Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence and record, it is to be assessed whether the trial court was legally justified in convicting and sentencing the Appellants under two distinct legal provisions of different statutes based on the same set of facts, circumstances and evidence. The determination of this question requires a harmonious interpretation of the legislative intent behind both statutes, the nature of the offence committed, material brought before the trial Court during evidence and the applicabil ity of the ATA in light of the facts established during trial. 6. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the Appellants, the complainant, and the victim (PW -1) were known to each other and had prior business dealings. The testimony of PW -1 further reveals that the Appellants were engaged as his servants. In adjudicating the present criminal appeals, we confine our consideration strictly to the material on record relevant to the alleged criminal intent, acts, and the commission of the offence. We consciously refrain from making any observations on the inter se affairs of the parties which are the subject matter of independent civil litigation, reportedly pending adjudication before the competent civil forum. 7. We have also noticed that learned Anti-Terrorism Court has passed the sentence against abduction for ransom under Section 365 -A PPC, 1860 as well as under Section 7(e) of the ATA, 1997 in absence of ingredients as required by Section 6 of ATA, 1997, which is appropriate to reproduce hereunder: “6. Terrorism. – (1) In this Act, ―terrorism ‖ means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls with the meaning of sub -section (2), and
Page 6 of 17
(b) the use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or a se ction of the public or community or sect [or a foreign government or population or an international organization] or create a senseof fear or insecurity in society; or
(c) the use of threat is made for the purpose of advancing a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause [or intimidating and terrorizing the public, social sectors, media persons, business community or attacking the civilians including damaging property by ransacking, looting, arson or by any other means, government officials, installations, sec urity forces or law enforcement agencies].‖
(2) An ―action‖ shall fall within the meaning of sub-section (1), if it: (a) …… (b) …… (c) …… (d) …… (e) involves kidnapping for ransom, hostage -taking or hijacking
8. Upon a plain and harmonious interpretati on of Section 6 of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997, it is evident that sub -section (2)(e) is not self -executing and must be read in conjunction with the foundational elements set out under Section 6(1). The legislative intent embedded in Section 6(1) ATA is to define the foundational elements or qualify as a "terrorist act," when it is committed with the specific intent or design to terrorize, intimidate, or coerce the public, state institutions, or sections of society and only where those elements are satisf ied the provisions of Section 6(2)(e) for kidnapping for ransom can be invoked. Mere commission of a scheduled offence such as Section 365 -A PPC — criminalizing kidnapping for ransom —does not, by itself, attract the penal consequences under Section 6(2)(e) of the ATA unless the requisite mens rea defined in Section 6(1) is clearly established and therefore, the provision of section 7(2)(e) cannot be enforced . In light of the foregoing analysis, the invocation of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997, particularly Sect ion 7(e), is contingent upon the act qualifying as a terrorist offence under Section 6(1). The
Page 7 of 17
Schedule to the ATA serves only to confer jurisdiction upon the Anti -Terrorism Courts but does not obviate the statutory requirement of proving intent or design to terrorize. In the present case, there is no cogent evidence to demonstrate that the offence was committed with the objective of spreading terror or coercion in the manner contemplated by Section 6(1). Furthermore, the dispute appears to be rooted in com mercial dealings between the parties, which have already been subjected to civil litigation. Therefore, the attempt to prosecute the appellants under the ATA framework is legally misconceived and unsupported by the factual matrix. Accordingly, sentencing u nder Section 7(e) ATA is not sustainable in law and cannot be upheld. In Ghulam Hussain v. State (PLD 2020 SC 61) , the larger bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.13 that: ―…For the purpose of further clarity on this issue it is explained f or the benefit of all concerned that the cases of the offences specified in entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 are cases of those heinous offences which do not per se constitute the offence of terrorism but such cases are to be tried by an Anti -Terrorism Court because of their inclusion in the Third Schedule. It is also clarified that in such cases of heinous offences mentioned in entry No. 4 of the said Schedule an Anti -Terrorism Court can pass a punishment for the said offence and not for committing the offence of terrorism. It may be pertinent to mention here that the offence of abduction or kidnapping for ransom under section 365 -A, P.P.C. is included in entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule and kidnapping for ransom is also one of the actions specified in section 7(e) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. Abduction or kidnapping for ransom is a heinous offence but the scheme of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 shows that an ordinary case of abduction or kidnapping for ransom under secti on 365 A, P.P.C. is merely triable by an Anti -Terrorism Court if kidnapping for ransom is committed with the design or purpose mentioned in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of section 6 of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 then such offence amounts to terro rism attracting section 7(e) of that Act. In the former case the convicted person is to be convicted and sentenced only for the offence under section 365 -A, P.P.C. whereas in the latter case the convicted person is to be convicted both for the offence unde r section 365-A, P.P.C. as well as for the offence under section 7(e) of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997….‖ (Emphasis added)
Page 8 of 17
9. Another dilemma what we find is that the trial Court has convicted the Appellants under ATA and PPC. It is a settled principle of constitutional and criminal jurisprudence that no individual shall be prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offence. This protection is firmly embedded in Article 13(a) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which guarantees that ―no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once.‖ This constitutional safeguard is reinforced by Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which bars retrial for the same offence or upon the same facts once a person has been acquitted or convicted. Additionally, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides that although a single act may constitute offences under multiple enactments, the offender may be prosecuted under any one of those enactments but ―shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.‖ 10. We have already observed that the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A PPC is a schedule offence for the purposes of jurisdiction and exclusively triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court which read as under: ―365-A. Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person for the purpose of extorting from the person kidnapped or abducted, or from any person interested in the person kidnapped or abducted, any property, whether movable or immovable or valuable security, or to compel any person to comply with any other demand, whether in cash or otherwise for obtaining release of the person kidnapped or abducted, shall be punished with (death or) imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to forfeiture of property‖.
11. Now moving towards the factual aspects and the requirement of prove for the offence of kidnappi ng for ransom, first we refer the relevant portion of deposition of PW-1 Sher Bahadur Khan, who has deposed: ―In year 2004 I was suggested by the Gawadar Development authority to establish a builder company. I accordingly developed Ocean Builder Private Builder worth of Rs. 100,000/ - (One Hundred Thousands) and I gave share to my employee accused Nawazish Akbar to the extent of five percent share, I produce memorandum alongwith the relevant certificates as Ex -05P1 to P18 (original seen and returned). NOC f rom
Page 9 of 17
Gawadar Development Authority was issued which I produce as Ex - 05P19 to P21 (original seen and returned). While I was in Dubai one Nadeem who intruded in my office at Karachi and ransacked therein for which FIR was registered which I produce as Ex -05P22 (carbon copy seen and returned at the request of the PW). I returned to Pakistan in year 2005 and audit of the business was conducted which surfaced that my employees accused Nawazish Akbar and Naveed Hafeez had committed some misappropriation. Both the accused gave their undertaking in black and white that they would not repeat such misappropriation and apologize me I accordingly forgave. I produce Iqrarnama of the accused as Ex -05P23 (original seen and returned). After some months accused Naveed Hafeez prepared my cheque and issued to accused Nawazish of Rs. 5 million and got it bounced, thereafter, they lodged FIR at P.S Sohrab Goth, one Nadeem was also with them in the conspiracy/Drama. I was arrested and was physically tortured at the P.S by the then DSP Hafeez Junejo at the instance of the present accused. I was forced to get the amount of Rs. 5 million arranged which I did and thereafter some documents were got forcibly signed. After my judicial remand in jail the accused took over all of my five off ices illegally. I dispatched the letter from the jail on the basis FIR at P.S Ferozabad was lodged. I produce copy of application, letter of jail FIR bearing crime No.284/2006 as Ex.05P24 to P27. The accused are absconder till today in the FIR. I terminate both the employees and got such notice published in the newspaper Daily Jirat and Daily Jisarat, cutting of the same photocopy is produce as Ex.05P28 to P29 (original seen and returned). I had gone to Malir Court on 19.06.2006 in terms of hearing of a cas e when I was intercepted at the back side premises of the court by both the accused alongwith absconding accused namely Haji Zaman, Amir, Fareed and Nadeem and abducted me in my car No. ADI -211 VTI Oriel Black and drove away, they had got my brothers down from my car. After one and half year my brother lodged the FIR . I produce the FIR as Ex-05P30, I was made captive in a room at first floor of the bungalow by the accused where Haji Zaman and Amir would make me pray Namaz and give me training of vein suicid e bomber. Both the absconding accused Haji Zaman and Amir would take me to different meeting of Taliban where they would conduct the JIRGAS (arbitration). In the period of six/seven months accused major Nawazish would also come where I came to know that ac cused Nawazish has transferred 95% share of the company in the name of absconding accused haji Zaman Mehsood. Two times present accused alongwith absconding accused Amir had sent for the ransom in the shape of cash of Rs. 3500,000/ - (3.5 millions) and jewe lry worth of Rs. 9 million from my wife. Thereafter, the accused got opened a bank account in Suneri Bank Badar commercial branch in DHA and got amount of installments of the plots from my clients deposited in the account, I produce bank statement of the account as Ex -05P31 to P39. The accused also sold out some of my files of worth Rs. 20 million. Due to growing psychology syndrome I was released.‖ (Emphasis added)
Page 10 of 17
12. We have carefully reappraised the evidence. The victim in his examination -in- chief has deposed that on two different occasions, the wife of the victim has paid Rs.35,00,000/ - in cash and jewelry having worth of Rs.90,00,000/ - on account of ransom amount for the release of the victim. The testimony of PW-3 (Nadeem Khan) introduces a materiall y divergent account regarding the alleged payment of ransom. He deposed: “Thereafter I reached the house of my sister and took a car alongwith my sister and went to the Nawazish and pay cash amount Rs.3500000/ - twicely. Due to shortage of money my sister a lso gave her jewelery to accused Nawazish in this regard.” This statement not only presents a different figure of the alleged ransom amount but also fails to corroborate the version of PW -1, thereby creating inconsistency in the prosecution’s narrative. Mo reover, PW-3 has offered no explanation as to why he did not inform the police or any law enforcement authority while proceeding to pay the purported ransom —particularly when, according to his own account, the payment was made on two separate occasions. Th is omission raises serious doubts about the credibility and reliability of his testimony. It is observed that the testimony of PW -5 lacks consistency and clarity regarding the alleged ransom amount and jewelry. He deposed “It is a fact that in my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 27.12.2007 I had not disclosed that my brother was returned back at home. I have no mentioned regarding payment of any ransom amount in statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in my examination -in- chief before this court. Vol says that the ransom amount was demanded from my Bhabhi and her brother. Rs.70 to 80 lacs amount alongwith jewelry of our family members were received by the accused from my Bhabhi and her brother. It is incorrect to suggest that the above said amount of Rs.70 to 80 lacs received from my brother and Bhabhi alongwith jewelry. No ransom amount was paid before me.” During examination -in-chief, PW -5 did not categorically disclose the exact amount of ransom or mention any payment by
Page 11 of 17
selling jewelry thereof. However, in cross -examination, he introduced a substantially different version, stating that an amount ranging from Rs.70 to 80 lacs along with family jewelry was received by the accused from his Bhabhi and her brother. He further admitted that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded on 27.12.2007, did not contain any reference to the return of his brother or the payment of ransom. He voluntarily added that the ransom demand was made to his Bhabhi and her brother, but clarified that no ransom amount was p aid in his presence. This contradiction between his examination - in-chief and cross -examination, coupled with the absence of such details in his earlier recorded statement, casts doubt on the credibility and reliability of his deposition. 13. Upon meticulous examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the depositions of PW -1 (victim), PW -3 and PW -5 (relatives), it is evident that the quantum of ransom amount alleged to have been demanded and paid is inconsistent and at variance across the testimonies. The learned counsel for the appellant in Spl. Crl. A.T.A. No.06/2025 has rightly drawn attention to the complaint filed by the victim before the Investigating Officer, wherein he voluntarily stated that Rs.10,000,000/ - was demanded by the accused, leading to registration of FIR No.49/2005. However, the accused was not arrested in connection with that FIR. Subsequently, the victim alleged that on 19.05.2005, he was abducted while proceeding to the Sessions Court, Malir, and u nder coercion transferred Rs.30,00,000/ - in cash, $1,000 USD, and 25,000 AED, including further ransom payments through M/s. Ocean Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. and by opening an account in Soneri Bank, Badar Commercial Branch, DHA Karachi. This led to…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.