MEER HAZAR KHAN CHANDIO vs PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss — 2022 YLRN 136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MEER HAZAR KHAN CHANDIO VS PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss. 23 & 6---application for transfer of case from anti-Terrorism Court to the ordinary court was dismissed---Validity---Complainant lodged FIR alleging that a group of assailants including the applicants, all armed with weapons, made firing upon the complainant party, three persons were struck by bullets and succumbed to the injuries---attack was said to have taken place in the vicinity of the agricultural land of the grandfather of complainant, after which the assailants were said to have continued firing indiscriminately, whilst withdrawing into the sugarcane field, a passer by also sustained injuries---Motive for the attack was stated to have been non-payment of bhatta---Record showed that application on a jurisdictional plane had earlier been moved by the petitioners before the anti-Terrorism Court, but met a similar fate---In a revision petition, matter was referred to anti-Terrorism Court for decision on that point specifically on the touchstone of the judgment of the Supreme Court--- anti-Terrorism Court found that circumstances constituted "terrorism" and did not care to consider the findings of the Supreme Court and had fallen back on the same reasoning resulting in the dismissal of the earlier applications moved by the petitioners---action falling under S. 6(2) of the anti-Terrorism act, 1997 would not by itself constitute "terrorism", but would require the coincidence of any of the objectives specified in clause (b) of S. 6(1) of the act or the use or threat of such action must be to achieve any of the purposes mentioned in clause (c) thereof, failing which the action, albeit otherwise constituting an offence, would not qualify as "terrorism"? irrespective of how grave, shocking, brutal, gruesome or horrifying such action may be, and had also gone on to clarify that the actions specified in S.6(2) would not qualify to be labeled or characterized as terrorism if such actions are taken in furtherance of personal enmity or a private vendetta---Overall conception of "terrorism" arrived at in the impugned order was far removed from what had been laid down in terms of Ghulam Hussain's case (PLD 2020 SC 61), and even the a.P.G. did not support the impugned Order and conceded that the finding recorded therein was at odds with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court---Circumstances showed that the impugned order suffered from error, hence the petition was allowed and impugned order was set aside and case was transferred from the anti-Terrorism Court to the ordinary criminal court for trial.

MEER HAZAR KHAN CHANDIO vs PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss — 2022 YLRN 136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported