NOZO vs State S — 2021 PCrLJ 1729 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation: 2021 PCrLJ 1729 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court: Balochistan High Court
Year: 2021
Reporter: PCRLJ
Parties: NOZO vs State S
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 7---E; S. 5; S. 7; S. 19; Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908); Explosive Substances Act; Anti-Terrorism Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

NOZO VS State S. 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4, 5 & 7---Keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Restriction on trial of offences---Failure to get permission from the competent authority for prosecution---Effect---Scope---Improvised explosive device and other explosive substances were recovered from the accused---Accused was charged under S. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, but according to S. 7 of the said Act, prior permission for prosecution of the competent authority was required---Sanction for prosecution for holding trial under Explosive Substances Act was mandatory and a condition precedent for prosecution under S. 5 of the said Act---In the absence of the requisite sanction/permission, entire proceedings would be void and without jurisdiction---Word "shall" used in S. 7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, left no room for any departure therefrom---Although, S. 19(8-B), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, made a relaxation to the effect that if a sanction was applied but not granted by the competent authority within 30 days then the due proceedings towards initiation of the trial might be carried on---Admittedly, no such request had been made and as such under S. 7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, as well as S. 19(8-B) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, prosecution and trial was not competent---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused without any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2021 PCRLJ

2021 PCrLJ 506 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTPROFESSOR AKHTAR KHAN VS State S. 497---prevention of electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 10 & 11---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109---C…
2021 PCrLJ 1457 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHADIL NADEEM VS State S. 497---prevention of electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), S. 22---Child pornography---Bail, refusal of---Delayed FIR--…
2021 PCrLJ 119 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHSALEEM KHALID VS State S. 497---prevention of electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 20, 21 & 24---Offences against dignity of natural pers…
2021 PCrLJN 83 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANABDULLAH alias KHALIQ DAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime weapon---De…
2021 PCrLJN 2 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANJAHANZAIB VS State Ss. 11F & 11H---Supply of statements and documents to the accused---Scope---Criminal trial commences with the distributio…
2021 PCrLJN 2 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANJAHANZAIB VS State Ss. 265-E & 221---Plea of guilty---Charge to state offence---Scope---When a person is convicted on a plea of guilty, the…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English