Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 662 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI

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

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 662 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-III, LAHORE S. 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365, 337-A(i), 337-L(2), 147 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully to confine person, Shajjah-i-khafifah, hurt, rioting, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---Power to transfer cases to regular Courts---Scope---Complainant reported an incident of abduction for ransom of his son, belabouring/torturing him as well as his son and after obtaining thumb impressions of brothers of the complainant/petitioner on a blank stamp paper as ransom, releasing his son---Application for transfer of the case to the ordinary Court was filed by accused persons, which was allowed---Validity---Record showed that the trial Court while examining the complaint, statements of complainant and other witnesses, Medico-legal Examination Certificates of the complainant as well as his son, found sufficient material for offence of "abduction for ransom" as well as injuries and summoned the accused persons under S. 204, Cr.P.C. to face the trial---Trial Court after examining the material under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C, framed the charge against accused persons under S. 365-A, P.P.C. also---Neither said summoning order nor charge framed by the Trial Court was challenged by accused persons/private respondents---Accused persons themselves got exhibited Stamp Paper/Affidavit during cross-examination over said witness/petitioner---Complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant mentioned date of occurrence including obtaining thumb impression on stamp paper was mentioned different and same was the date of scribing said Affidavit/Stamp Paper---Complainant claimed that his son was abducted for ransom, taken to office and then after getting thumb impressions of brothers of the complainant on blank stamp paper, he was released---Distance between place of abduction and confinement had been got clarified by defence during cross-examination from complainant---If anyone had been taken from one place to another, detained/confined there in order to extort any movable or immovable property or valueable security or to comply with any other demand whether in cash or otherwise for obtaining release of said person, then it fell within the definition of S. 365-A, P.P.C., which is a scheduled offence---Statement of said abductee, who was a star witness of the occurrence particularly regarding offence under S. 365-A, P.P.C., was yet to be recorded and he was present before the Court for recording his statement---Without recording his statement, it was concluded through impugned order that offence regarding abduction for ransom was not made out and the case was sent to the ordinary Court---Of course, after taking cognizance of the case, if Anti-Terrorism Court was of the opinion that offence was not a Scheduled Offence, then under S. 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it could transfer the case to any other Court having jurisdiction to try the same---Anti-Terrorism Court, after receiving the complaint, did not return the same for presentation to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction rather took cognizance and recorded statement of the complainant on oath, then while conducting inquiry, recorded statements of abductee/injured and other witnesses, thereafter, taking into consideration complaint, statements of complainant, witnesses, Medico-legal Examination Certificates and other material, came to the conclusion that prima-facie offences under Ss. 365-A, 337-A, 337-L(2), 147 & 149, P.P.C., were made out and summoned the accused persons vide order, which order remained unchallenged---Trial Court under S. 265-D, Cr.P.C., on the basis of entire material, framed the charge against accused persons including S. 365-A, P.P.C., which also remained unchallenged, therefore, just after recording of evidence of the complainant and without recording statement of a star witness/abductee/injured/victim invoking power under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sending the case to Court of ordinary jurisdiction was premature exercise done by the Anti-Terrorism Court/Trial Court, which was neither permissible nor could be appreciated---Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 662 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-III, LAHORE S — 2023 PCrLJ 662 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ