SHAGUFTA SARWAR, ADPP vs SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 1594 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

SHAGUFTA SARWAR, ADPP VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT Ss. 387 & 506---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, criminal intimidation, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---accused was produced before the anti-Terrorism Court for his physical remand with the opinion of Public Prosecutor that offence under S. 387, P.P.C. fell under the definition of S. 6(2)(k) of anti-Terrorism act, 1997---anti-Terrorism Court while showing its disagreement with the opinions of the Public Prosecutor turned down the request of the Investigating Officer and directed him to produce the accused before the area Magistrate and also passed derogatory remarks against the prosecution institution---Validity---Record showed that there were two parts of the impugned order in first portion, the Judge made serious observations directly or indirectly relating to entire Prosecution Service whereas, in the second part, he was of the view that prosecution had no role whatsoever in the process of investigation---Both the areas of the impugned order could not sustain as there was no material at all available with the learned Judge to make such derogatory, insulting and offensive remarks against any Prosecutor or the Prosecution Department, however, it appeared that Judge was not cognizant of the fact that the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) act (III of 2006) was still holding the field giving various powers to the Prosecutors to be used from day one when FIR was recorded in police station---Intervention of independent Prosecution serving agency was not ceremonial or the role of the Prosecutor was not of a post office but to have a check on the working of the Investigating Officers at the right time and right place for the reason that the ultimate responsibility of the Prosecutors was to ensure effective prosecution---Powers lied with the court to agree or disagree with the said opinion (in accordance with law) but under no circumstance it was within the domain of the court to sit over the powers of the Prosecutors in a way as evident from the impugned order passed by the Judge who without applying judicial mind and closing his eyes observed that any wrong opinion amounted to interference in the investigation---Judge skipped the provision of S. 18 of the act that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings would lie against the Prosecutor in respect of anything done or attempted to be done by him in good faith---In fact the Judge anti-Terrorism Court (aTC) had impinged upon the authority of the Prosecutors and crossed its limits while giving unethical, biased and prejudiced observations in particular when there was no material at all in support of those remarks---Learned Judge was vested with no authority to restrain or restrict the statutory powers available to the Prosecutors---Petitions were allowed by setting aside stricture/remarks and recommendations recorded by the Judge.

SHAGUFTA SARWAR, ADPP vs SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 1594 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PCRLJ