Sheraz Ahmad vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1098 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.

Sheraz Ahmad VS State Ss. 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-C, 109 & 34---prevention ofelectronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), S. 11---Application of the petitioners for not charge sheeting them for the offences of P.P.C was dismissed---Validity---Record revealed that petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were booked for offences under S. 11 of PECA, 2016, read with S. 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-C, 34, 109, P.P.C, in case FIR registered by the police of Police Station Cyber Crime Reporting Centre---From the contents of the report under S.173 of Cr.P.C, the allegations against the petitioners were that they, by using their WhatsApp group shared the translation of the Holy Quran, which had been banned and the propagation to other people of such kind of material was illegal---By doing that act maliciously, the petitioners outraged the religious feelings of Muslim citizens ofPakistan to advance sectarian hatred among them---Offences under Section 11 of PECA, 2016, and S. 295-A, 295-B, 295-C & 298-C, P.P.C, could not be tried separately because the offences falling under S.11 of PECA, 2016, and under S.295-A, 295-B, 295-C & 298-C, P.P.C., were interlinked---Fact of the matter was that the Court established under PECA, 2016, was designated to adjudge the offence of hate speech under S.11 of PECA, 2016---Allegations had given rise to different offences committed by the petitioners in the same transaction and in that manner, they could not be separated---Similarly, the same set of persons were proposed to stand as witnesses along with common documents, like FIR, recovery memos, statements of PWs recorded under S.161 of Cr.P.C, etc., to prove the charge of using Whatsapp group by the petitioners and sharing the translation of the Holy Quran, which had been banned and the propagation to other people ofsuch kind of material was illegal---If the allegations were placed before two Courts through separate reports under S.173 of Cr.P.C, there would be a possibility of conflicting decisions---Above all, it would put in peril both sides for undergoing the ordeal of separate trials regarding the same transaction and would frustrate spirit ofS.4(c) & 235-A of Cr.P.C---Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Sheraz Ahmad vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1098 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ