ANF vs MUHAMMAD FAIZAN Ss — 2022 PLD 700 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.

ANF VS MUHAMMAD FAIZAN Ss. 302, 324, 353 & 186---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, possession of narcotic substance---Prosecution case was that accused was apprehended from the house by the officials of ANF and one of the accused was given a chase by the personnel of ANF but he responded with a straight fire hitting one of the officials; accused made a successful escape and from the blue sack thrown by him 15-packets of charas, weighing 16.875 kilograms were recovered---Case was thoroughly investigated by ANF and on the conclusion of the investigation, report under S.173, Cr.P.C. only to the extent of Ss.9(c), 15 & 17 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was submitted in the court of CNS---To the extent of offences under P.P.C. and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 a separate report under S.173, Cr.P.C. was proposed to be submitted in the Anti-Terrorism Court---Special Judge (CNS) Court, held that he lacked jurisdiction and both the reports under S.173, Cr.P.C., were to be submitted before the Court constituted under ATA, 1997---Validity---Record showed that the raid though led to the recovery of a consignment comprising upon 16.875 Kilograms of charas but also culminated into the death of one ANF personnel, who statedly was gunned down by one of the accused while decamping from the spot so as to avoid his arrest---Language of S.235, Cr.P.C. is explicit in sense and enables a Court to charge an accused in one trial for multiple offences comprising upon different acts but committed during same transaction---Term "same transaction" used in S.235, Cr.P.C., was of dominant importance and called for indulgence---Offences, though, committed not at same place and time but if were stemming from common motivation, intent, design or in continuity with each other, still could be described as forming same transaction---For the determination of question about the offences having been committed during same transaction, the root cause of the crime or the motive was to be considered along with proximity of time and distance between the different events---If the different events forming basis of a crime could not be bisected in reference to the motive, design, concert and reasons rather were strongly interwoven with each other by common thread of background, it could inexorably be held that offences were committed during same transaction within the meaning of S. 235, Cr.P.C.---In the present case, all the accused named in the crime report prima facie, were found concerned in drugs trafficking and one out of them committed the murder of a person hailing from raiding party to make an escape and to avoid arrest---All the offences were committed in one transaction, thus were to be tried through a common charge under S. 239(d), Cr.P.C. by the same Court in a single trial---According to the Preamble, CNS Act, 1997, was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and to control the production, processing and trafficking of drugs and substances---Chapter II deals with certain prohibitions and provide punishments for their violations---Inexorably, all the penal provisions contained in Chapter II of CNS Act, 1997, deal with offences relating to narcotic drugs, psychotropic and controlled substances---For trial of cases arising out of CNS Act, 1997, Special Courts were notified and established under S.45, which also specified the sphere of their jurisdiction---Section 45 of CNS Act, 1997, signified that the jurisdiction of Special Court was restricted only to the extent of offences mentioned in CNS Act, 1997, and did not go beyond---Tenor of S. 45 CNS Act, 1997, made it unambiguously clear that jurisdiction of Court established under CNS Act, 1997 though was exclusive but limited in nature---Alluded from the Preamble that ATA, 1997, was enacted to cater the need of countering the menace of terrorism, sectarian violence and heinous offences---Preamble extended the scope of ATA, 1997 even to the offences which were connected with terrorism etc. or were incidental thereto---Word "incidental" used in the Preamble of ATA, 1997, is of higher import and stand for acts and results attached with the main transaction---Use of word "incidental" that matters ancillary or connected with the principal misdeed of terrorism and heinous offences come within the scope of ATA, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court besides taking cognizance of terrorism, sectarianism and heinous offences could also extend jurisdiction to offences which were their fall out or by-products---Under S. 12(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Special Court were constituted with exclusive domain to take cognizance of scheduled offences as was evident from its S.12(1) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---After dilating in-depth upon the Preamble, Ss.12(1), 17 & 21-M of ATA, 1997, it was concluded that all those provisions were required to be read in conjunction with each other for determining the jurisdiction of Special Court constituted under ATA, 1997---Non-obstante clause of S. 12(1) when read continently with other provisions of ATA, 1997, it becomes abundantly clear that the jurisdiction of Special Court is extended to other offences as well if committed along with scheduled offences during same transaction as continuity of actions---Canvassed allegations give rise to different offences committed by same set of accused and in the manner that they could not be bisected---Similarly, the same set of persons were proposed to stand as witnesses along with common documents like FIR, inspection notes, recovery memos etc. to prove the charge of possession of narcotics and committing the murder of deceased---If the allegations were placed before two different courts through separate 173, Cr.P.C reports, there would be a possibility of conflicting decisions and above all it would put in peril both the sides for undergoing the ordeal of separate trials regarding the same transaction---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

ANF vs MUHAMMAD FAIZAN Ss — 2022 PLD 700 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD