ZAIN SHAHID vs State S — 2024 SCMR 843 SUPREME-COURT

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

ZAIN SHAHID VS State S. 221---Charge, framing of---Scope, significance and purpose of framing of charge against an accused explained. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 843 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ZAIN SHAHID VS State Ss. 11-H(i) & (ii) & 11-F(i)---Fund raising for a proscribed organization---Re-appraisal of evidence---Defective and vague framing of charge---Effect---Failure of justice---Trial Court while framing the charge, did not specify as to which of the sub-clause of section 11-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ('ATA of 1997') was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case---There was no evidence on the record to suggest that the petitioner (accused) was guilty of an offence either under section 11(1)(a) or 11(1)(b) of the ATA of 1997---FIR, the police report and the other material available on the record were insufficient for the Trial Court to frame charge against the petitioner under any of the clauses of section 11-H of the ATA of 1997, yet defective and vague charge was framed under the stated offences, without mentioning in detail the purported act of the petitioner, which constituted an offence---In absence of relevant information and evidence to prima facie constitute an offence, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have refrained itself from framing of charge against the petitioner---In the FIR, in the police report, the documents attached therewith and the evidence available on the record, there was nothing to establish that the petitioner was busy in collecting the money, nor was there any allegation with regard to his intent that money recovered from him was the outcome of the donation he collected, and was to be used or had reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purpose of terrorism or by a terrorist or by an organization concerned in terrorism---It was alleged that the petitioner was arrested having a donation book on which name of a proscribed organization was printed and leaves of it contained his signature, along with an amount of Rs.1500/- were recovered from him---Admittedly, the petitioner did not sign any leaf of the book in presence of the witnesses---Moreover, no leaf of it having the alleged signatures of the petitioner was sent to the forensic laboratory for obtaining expert's opinion to verify the signatures---First Information Report was registered upon an information received by the complainant from DIG CTD, but it too did not disclose commission of the offence under section 11-H of the ATA of 1997, against the petitioner at the relevant time---Rather it was just a presumption and apprehension of the DIG that the petitioner belonged to a proscribed organization Daesh, and collected donations and funding for the said organization and the said money was potentially used in carrying out terrorist activities across the country---Admittedly, neither the DIG nor any officer of DIG's office participated in the investigation nor did they appear before the Trial Court as a witness, to substantiate the contents of the FIR---There is no detail in the FIR as to the date, time, place and manner of collecting such money by the petitioner, nor his intention or any reasonable cause on his behalf to suspect that the amount shall be or may be used for terrorist activities---Before registration of the FIR, the petitioner's name was included in Fourth Schedule to the ATA of 1997 and he was regularly appearing before the concerned police---Had he indulged in any criminal activity, an FIR could have been registered against him under the relevant provision of law for any of his specific act, but the needful was not done for the reason that the concerned police officials did not find him involved in any such activity---Fact remains that there was lack of ingredients of any of the subsections of section 11-H of the ATA of 1997, the prosecution continued to produce irrelevant evidence in this behalf---Witnesses produced by the prosecution did not establish the commission of an offence, but still the petitioner was held guilty of offences under sections 11H(i) and (ii) of the ATA of 1997 and was sentenced for a period of ten years by the fora below, without specifying the sentence separately for each subsection---This act of the Trial Court had seriously prejudiced the petitioner by convicting him for an offence, which was not committed by the petitioner, nor was it mentioned in the charge framed against him, hence, it was a failure of justice---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him.

ZAIN SHAHID vs State S — 2024 SCMR 843 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR