Anti-Terrorism Act, 1992

 

Section-11(1)

Trial of an accused in absentia

If the police failed to arrest an accused during investigation and showed him as absconding while submitting charge sheet that should be considered to be enough for a Tribunal to take recourse to section 11 of the act for holding trial in absentia.

Choton @ Md. Arif Hossain & Anr. Vs. The State 6 BLT (AD)- 231

Anti-Terrorism Act, 1992


Anti-Terrorism Act


[XLIV of 1992]

 

Section 4—When
the offence alleged was not complete but only an attempt was made, charge as
framed under the Anti-Terrorism Act is not tenable. Shadesh Chandra Saha vs State 48 DLR 206.

 

Section 4—The
provision of this section is attracted only when attempt is successful and
complete. An attempt to realize money in the form of donation or otherwise has
not been made punishable.

 

ANTI-TERRORISM ACT, 1992

 

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.

 

Anti-Terrorism Act, 1992


Anti-Terrorism Act [XLIV of 1992]


Section 2(2)(Ka)—

As there is no evidence of creating disorder or lawlessness
or any terror in the alleged shop the prosecution has not been able to bring
home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Nuruddin Ahmed Sajal v State 1 BLC 33

 

Sections 2(2)(Cha)
and 4—

As there is no allegation that the respondents committed any
terrorist activities or assaulted or did any overt act for which it could be
said that any offence under section 2(2) (Cha) of Anti- Terrorism Act have been
made out calling for framing a charge under section 4 of the said Act.

State vs Abdul Kadir and others 2 BLC (AD) 137


Sections 4 and 5—

Attempt to realise ‘chanda’ (donation) from a person is not
an offence within the meaning of “Anti-Terrorism’ Act, Under section 5 of the
Act abetment has been made an offence but to realise any money in the form of
chanda (donation) or otherwise has not been included within the definition of
the offence.

Nuruddin Ahmed Sajal vs State 1 BLC 33

 

Section 5—

Section 5 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1992, abetment has
been made an offence but attempt to realise any money in the form of chanda
(donation) or otherwise has not been included within the definition of the
offence. It is not well settled that in a special law an offence must be
specifically provided. An attempt to realise chanda (donation) from a person is
not an offence within the meaning of the “Anti-Terrorism Act” and the charge
levelled against the petitioner is quashed.

Nuruddin Ahmed Sajal vs State 1 BLC 33.