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)
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
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.