ANTI-TERRORISM ACT, 1992

Section—2 (Ka) to 2 (Chha)

From a reading of the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act it is seen that the Anti— Terrorism Tribunal has been invested with the power to try all offences under the Penal Code and other laws along with the offences as defined under section 2 (Ka) to 2 (Chha) of the Act. Since the legislature has purposely, consciously and clearly made this provision for trial of different offences by the Anti-Terrorism Tribunal, no different meaning can be attributed to it while dealing with the question of quashing a proceeding in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court Division

The language of the statute is depository and reservoir of the legislative intent. In order to ascertain and discover the intention the of the legislature, statute must be considered as whole to grasp its true meaning. Where the statute is clear it needs no interpretation. If it is ambiguous of the legislature is to be looked into. The Court is to interpret on the basis of the language and intent and not to enter deep into the matter. The plain meaning of the statute indicates that the offences defined under section 2(ka) to 2(Chha) is to be tried and can be tried alongwith the offences under the Penal Code and the general law of the land. The Tribunal at the time of framing charge shall consider whether the offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act and under the general law of the country is separable or not.

Md. Shahidullah and others Vs. The Stateg 14BLD(HCD)520 Ref: A.I.R 1988(SC) 992; 1988 S.C.C. 271; PLD 1990 (Karachi) 448—Cited

Section—4

Mere attempt to realise ransom does not constitute any offence under section 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The provision of this section would be attracted only when the attempt is successful and the offence is complete. An attempt to realise money in the form of donation or otherwise has not been made a punishable offence under this special law.

Shadesh Chandra Saha Vs. The State, 15 BLD(HCD)93

Ref: 1951 (Assam) 17; A.I.R. 1937 (Cal) 710; A.I.R. 1950(Mad) 599; 33 DLR 379— Cited

Section—9(2)

Simultaneous Trial—Section 9(2) of the Act provides for simultaneous trial of two cases in which offences are so inter-connected that such trials become necessary in the interest of justice.

In the absence of any nexus between the two cases in respect of time, date and place of the occurrences, it cannot be held that the two cases arose out of the self-same occurrence.

 Hafiz alias Hafizul Islam and another Vs. The State, 14 BLD(HCD)328.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.