| Case ID |
19fe5972-b941-48d7-9fb2-bfdde6eb1b99 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.Rs. Nos. 27-K and 28-K of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 04, 2016 |
| Hearing Date |
Jul 04, 2016 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court held that the allegations of extortion (bhatta) against the accused did not meet the criteria set forth in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The court noted that the FIR lacked specific details regarding the financial status of the complainant and did not provide evidence of any acts that would invoke the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. The complainant failed to establish a case of terrorism as defined by the law, as the alleged offense stemmed from personal enmity rather than a broader threat to public safety. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's findings that there was no sufficient basis for anti-terrorism charges. |
| Summary |
In this significant case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Courts regarding allegations of extortion (bhatta) under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The court ruled that mere allegations without tangible evidence do not suffice to establish a case under the Act. The FIR was found lacking in critical details, such as the complainant's financial status and specific instances of alleged extortion, which are vital for substantiating claims of terrorism. The court emphasized that the motive behind the alleged crime was personal vendetta rather than public terror, thus dismissing the petition for leave to appeal. This case underscores the importance of clear evidence in legal proceedings related to anti-terrorism, ensuring that only genuine cases are heard by specialized courts. Legal practitioners must be diligent in gathering substantial evidence to support claims made in FIRs, particularly in sensitive cases involving allegations of terrorism or extortion. The decision reinforces the principle that Anti-Terrorism Courts should not be misused for personal grievances, maintaining the integrity of legal processes. Keywords such as 'Anti-Terrorism Act', 'jurisdiction', 'extortion', and 'personal enmity' are crucial for understanding the implications of this ruling. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
GULZAR AHMED,
MAQBOOL BAQAR
|
| Lawyers |
Fareed Ahmed Dayo,
Zafar Ahmed Khan,
Ghulam Shabir Shah,
Ghulam Rasool Mangi
|
| Petitioners |
SAGHEER AHMED
|
| Respondents |
The STATE and others
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 2426,
2016 SCMR 1754
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)
|
| Sections |
6(2)(k)
|