Syed GHAZI SHAH vs State Ss — 2022 PLD 539 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.

Syed GHAZI SHAH VS State Ss. 11-H & 27---Funding arrangements---Punishment for defective investigation and reward for successful investigation---Scope---Intention of legislature behind Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is crystal clear i.e. to prevent/crush the terrorism---Any Terrorist Organization cannot run without economical support/finance and fund raising is back bone of the same, hence S. 11-H was incorporated/added in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and both acts i.e. giving and receiving of fund were made offences---No two ways about it that if no one will give fund then there will be no question about receiving the same and both acts i.e. giving and receiving fund are inter-connected, bonded, co-related and in-severable---With justified wisdom, act of giving the fund was also made an offence---If following the true spirit of legislation, fund givers are apprehended, taken to task and punished then of course one will think before giving such fund and buying worry of facing prosecution as well as getting punishment and ultimately back bone of terrorist organization would be crashed, therefore, catching fund donor first is more necessary than fund receiver---When it is not the case of prosecution that someone was forcibly collecting fund then both i.e. fund donor as well as collector were to be jointly booked---Omission on part of Investigating Agency in this regard i.e. not apprehending the person who gives such fund is punishable under S. 27 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Prime object of every law dealing with crime is always to prevent the crime in society and of course to have reformation/cure by awarding punishment. S. 11-H---Funding arrangements---Scope---Person commits an offence under S. 11-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, who provides fund as well as who receives such fund likely to be used for terrorism. S. 11-F---Membership, support and meetings relating to a Proscribed Organization---Scope---Accused was convicted for collecting funds for a proscribed organization---No evidence was available on record to show that the accused was a member of proscribed organization or had any link with the same---Prosecution was silent about the modus operandi of such fund raising for the proscribed organization---Any person from whom the accused had demanded funds was not joined into investigation---Receipt book recovered from the accused was secured through sealed parcel, similarly signatures of the accused were secured through sealed parcel, however, report of Forensic Laboratory did not reflect that the referred articles were sealed---Carbon copies of receipts neither contained name, flag or any other distinguished mark of any proscribed organization nor showed that figure mentioned in the same was about any amount "given or taken" as fund for any proscribed organization---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt and in such state of affairs there was no need to discuss defence version---Appeal filed by accused was allowed, in circumstances.

Syed GHAZI SHAH vs State Ss — 2022 PLD 539 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD