S.5. read with Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Section 190 and Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/324 and 149–Double murder–Offence of–Whether Special Court could entertain private complaint after submission of challan by Police—Question of–Under Section 5 of Act, incharge of Police Station is required to submit report in a case triable by Special Court, directly to that Court within 14 days whereas Court of Session is debarred under Section 193 Cr. P.C. to take cognizance unless case is sent by Magistrate under Section 190(3) of Cr. P.C.–Held: A direct complaint in a case triable by Special Court, is maintainable–Held further: Special Court acted within its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of case on basis of a direct complaint–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 SC 539 PLJ 1988 Cr. C. (Karachi) 130 distinguished. PLJ 1966 SC 708, PLD 1986 SC 737 and 1985 SCMR 1314 rel.
S.7(1) read with Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Sections 426 and 561-A- Trial and conviction by Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities- Whether High Court can press into service Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. for suspending sentence–Question of–Section 561-A cannot be invoked in aid where there are express provisions dealing with a particular subject, far example Section 426 Cr.P.C. empowers an appellate court to suspend sentence and admit a convict to bail during pendency of appeal–Held: But in case an appeal of a convict remains pending for a number of years and delay amounts to abuse of process of Court, warranting grant of bail, High Court can press into service Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. (Per Ajmal Mian, J). PLJ 1992 SC 625 PLD 1963 SC 237, PLD 1967 SC 317 and 1986 SCMR 483 ref.
Section 7, Explosive Substance Act 1908, S. 3 and Pakistan Penal Code Ss. 302/34–Murder–Offence of–Conviction for–Appeal against–Occurrence took place at-midnight–It was promptly reported to police and accordingly was registered–Medical evidence is in line with ocular account–Prosecution version except motive has been proved which is corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries–Question of false implication of appellants does not arise–There appears to be no reason that complainant would substitute appellants instead of real murderers of his daughter–There is n serious enmity between complainant and accused–Testimony of eye-witnesses is free from major discrepancies or contradictions–They were subjected In lengthy cross-examination but their veracity could not lie shaken–They are consistent on all material points and their evidence inspires confidence–Evidence of PW-7 and PW-9 can safely be relied upon on the question of identification of appellant inasmuch they recognised him in the light of lantern plus hearing his Lalkara–Complainant and accused are related to each other–Persons related inter se can lie recognised even during dark night by hearing their whispering and dialogues–Held: Prosecution has succeeded in bringing home guilt to appellant No. 1 beyond and shadow of doubt–Held : He was correctly convicted–2nd appellant who was admittedly aged 83 years of the time of occurrence and have been indulged in ineffective firing–His false implication in this case cannot be ruled out–Prosecution has not been able to prove its case against him beyond reasonable doubt–He was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted.