Down Load Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/crl.p._230_2019.pdf
Present Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi The Court dealt with the questions: (i) what is meant by the words "cognizance of the case" as employed in Section 23 of the AntiTerrorism Act, 1997; and (ii) whether remedy of revision before the High Court is available to an aggrieved party against the order of ATC passed under Section 23 of the Act, transferring the case to an ordinary criminal court?
Meaning and Scope of the words "cognizance of the case" employed in section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
As to the first question, the Court held: “ATC would be said to take "cognizance of the case" when on the receipt of the challan along with the material placed therewith by the prosecution, it takes judicial notice thereon by the conscious application of mind and takes positive steps to indicate that the trial of the case is to follow. These steps need not necessarily be recorded as judicial orders. What is essential is that the orders so passed or steps taken reflect that ATC is to proceed with the trial.” (Para 32)
Availability of remedy of revision before the High Court against the order of ATC passed under section 23 of the AntiTerrorism Act, 1997
The Court answered the second question in affirmative with the observations: “ATC being a judicially "inferior criminal court" to the High Court and that the order of transfer of the case…was passed during the “proceedings” of the case before the ATC. Accordingly, the two condition precedents for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 435 was satisfied, and thus the grievance of the present respondent…. was maintainable under the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 435 Cr.P.C.” (Para 24)
9. Ali Gohar v. Pervaiz Ahmed
Down Load Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/crl.p._230_2019.pdf
0 Comments