ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

SPl. Crl. A. T. Appeal No. 01 of 2016

____________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

1. For hearing of case.

2. For hearing of MA. No. 06 of 2016.

01-06-2017

Mr. Khan Zaman, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, DPG.

-x-x-x-x-

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants contends that he would not press the instant appeal, if the appellants’ sentence is reduced to already undergone, on the plea that the appellants are first offender; they are not previously convicted and they are only male persons to earn for the livelihood of their families; Section 7 ATA is misapplied by the police; there is only allegation of Rs.30,000/- extortion; appellants are in custody since 05.12.2013, therefore, they have served sentence as 3 years, 7 months and 18 days including remission.

On this proposal, learned APG extends his no objection.

While considering the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are the first offenders; no Arm was recovered from them except Rs.30,000/- cash, hence, with regard to conviction under Section 7 (h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is apparently basic are lacking ingredients. At this juncture, it would be conducive to refer paragraph No. 9 of the judgment passed in Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 113 of 2017.

“9. At the outset, we would safely add here that a mere allegation of demand of bhatta (extortion) in FIR would not necessarily bring the Section 6(2)(k) into action but prosecution would be required to place on record a little more than a mere allegation. Reference to the case of Sagheer Ahmed (2016 SCMR 1754) would be sufficient in this regard wherein honourable Apex Court stamped the following observation of the High Court with regard to application of Section 6(2)(k) of ATA on demand of Bhatta which (observation) is:

“10. …… Complainant has also not disclosed the specified dates, times and places of demanding Bhatta by accused persons nor any such evidence was produced before the investigating Officer to prima facie establish such allegations. In absence of any tangible material, mere allegations of demanding Bhatta do not attract section 6(2)(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in the present case nor said section was mentioned in the FIR and Challan.”

Accordingly, conviction awarded under Sections 6 (k) and 7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 is hereby set aside and appellants are hereby convicted under Section 385 PPC and sentenced as already undergone.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Sajid