2026 P Cr. L J 548

 2026 P Cr. L J 548

[Balochistan]

Before Iqbal Khan Kasi and Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal, JJ

MUHAMMAD KHAN alias Akhtar Muhammad---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Revision Petition No. 27 of 2024, decided on 15th September,

2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 265-K, 435 & 439---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 11-F,

11-H, 11-J, 11-I, 11-K, 11-N & 7---Prohibition of acts intended or likely

to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings

relating to a proscribed organization, collecting funds for a

proscribed organization, act of terrorism---Acquittal of accused at

any stage of trial---Scope---Application of the petitioner under S. 265-

K, Cr.P.C, for his acquittal was dismissed by the Trial Court---

Validity---Record transpired that in pursuance of secret information,

the CTD Officials conducted a raid in the flat of petitioner, where

they found the petitioner counting huge quantity of Pakistani

currency---Search of flat was conducted, which resulted in recovery

of cash amount of Rs.108,10101/-, record of several bank accounts,

26 cheque books and ATM Cards etc.---Besides, the petitioner

(accused) being an active facilitator of proscribed organization i.e.

Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan ("TTP") was also involved in collecting

donations and extortion money from certain sources including

Afghanistan, where he had another office, wherefrom his co-

accomplice also sent money---Thus, under such circumstances, the

innocence or guilt of the petitioner could only be determined after

full-fledged trial and the examining the witnesses---Provisions of

Ss.265-K, & 561-A of the Cr.P.C. should not normally be pressed into

action for decision of fate of a criminal case particularly, when

apparently there was probability of conviction after recording

evidence---In the instant case, petitioner (accused) was arrested at

the spot, not only huge quantity of Pakistani currency was

recovered from his possession, but 26 bank accounts record, ATMs

and ledger was also recovered---First Information Report was lodged

promptly by nominating and ascribing specific role to the petitioner

(accused) by the complainant and even under the law in such like

cases, the sole testimony of a complainant was enough for

conviction, if it was truthful and confidence inspiring---As such, the

Trial Court had rightly exercised its powers by not allowing the application under S.265-K Cr.P.C., as sufficient evidence was

available on record connecting the petitioner (accused) with the

commission of crime and the petitioner (accused) could not take the

advantage of his acquittal in another crime, when the entire

scenario was altogether different from the case in hand---Petitioner-

accused had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the

order passed by the Trial Court requiring interference of High

Court---Petition being not maintainable was dismissed, accordingly.

Model Customs Collectorate, Islamabad v. Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi

2022 SCMR 1861 rel.

Zakir Khan Kakar for Petitioner.

Ameer Hamza Mengal, Additional P.G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 21st August, 2025.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UD-DIN MENGAL, J.--- This judgment

disposes of Criminal Revision Petition No.27 of 2024 filed by the

petitioner (accused) Muhammad Khan alias Akhtar Muhammad,

against the order dated 20th June 2024 ( the impugned order ) passed

by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Killa Abdullah,

Chaman ( the trial Court ) whereby the application under section 265-K

Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are that on 5th October 2022, the complainant SI

Abdul Zahir Shah, lodged FIR No.80 of 2022 at Police Station CTD,

District Quetta, under Section under Sections 11-F (I) (2) (6), 11-H. 11-

J, 11-I, 11-K, 11-N and 7-ATA, 1997 with the history that on the said

date at about 05:30 p.m. he received a spy information that a member

of proscribed organization i.e. Tehrik-e-Talban Pakistan ( TTP )

namely Muhammad Khan alias Akhtar Muhammad, who deals with

the business of Havala/Hundi and having different accounts in

various banks and provide monetary aids to the banned

organizations. Moreover, he receives funds for proscribed

organization i.e. T.T.P from different sources and used to transfer the

same to Ameer Ain-ul-Zaman and others to Afghanistan; who also

hired a flat in the third floor of Shafi Plaza, Maal Road, Chaman, is

presently present in the said flat and having a huge Pakistani

currency. Pursuant to such information, a team of Counter Terrorism

Department ( CTD ) conducted raid at about 06:00 pm. at said flat,

where found a person, who was counting Pakistani currency. On

query he disclosed his name as Muhammad Khan alias Akhtar

Muhammad son of Fazal Muhammad. The search of flat was

conducted, which resulted into recovery of huge sum of Pakistani currency, cheque books of various banks, ATM cards and ledgers; the

particulars whereof are mentioned in the FIR, which were taken into

possession and accused was arrested by the CTD officials.

3. In pursuance of above FIR, the petitioner (accused) was arrested,

subjected to investigation and on completion thereof he was challaned

before the trial Court, trial was commenced and charge was framed. In

the meantime, the petitioner filed an application under Section 265-K

Cr.P.C. for his acquittal on the sole ground that on the garb of instant

crime, the petitioner was also implicated in another FIR bearing

No.666 of 2022 registered with PS CTD Kohat Region-I, while in the

referred crime he was acquitted of the charge by the learned Judge,

Anti-Terrorism Court, Kohat Division, Kohat, vide order dated 25th

April 2024; thus prayed for his acquittal. The learned trial Court after

hearing arguments, dismissed the said application through impugned

order dated 26th June 2024. Whereafter, the petitioner has filed the

instant petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and with their able

assistance perused the available record. It transpires from the record

that in pursuance to secret information, the CTD officials conducted

a raid in the flat of petitioner, where found the petitioner counting

huge quantity of Pakistani currency. When, the search of flat was

conducted, which was resulted into cash amount of Rs.108,10101/-,

record of several bank accounts, 26 cheque books and ATM Cards etc.

Besides, the petitioner (accused) being an active facilitator of

proscribed organization i.e. Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan ( TTP ) and

also involved in collecting donations and extortion money from

certain sources including Afghanistan, where he has another office

located in Wesh Mandi, wherefrom his co-accomplice in Khosti also

send money. Since, the petitioner was specifically nominated in the

FIR with specific role of facilitating banned organization and also

involved in collecting extortion money. As far as, acquittal of the

petitioner (accused) in FIR No.666 of 2022, PS MRS Kohat is

concerned, the same pertains to a bomb blast incident a petrol pump

tuck shop and one transaction of Rs.400,000/- alleged as extortion

money from Kohat through bank transaction. While contrary to the

same, the present FIR bearing No.80 of 2022, CTD Quetta pertains to

recovery of huge cash, cheque books, ledgers and banking records,

coupled with disclosures regarding transmission of funds from

Afghanistan for terrorist activities. The two matters are, therefore,

distinct in facts, scope and fact-in-issue., hence by garb of acquittal

under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism

Court, Kohat Division, Kohat, the petitioner has filed the instant

criminal revision petition, which otherwise is not maintainable

being filed at pre-mature stage as the prosecution has not so far examined the prosecution witnesses and the fate of a heinous crime

cannot be decided in vacuum even prior to recording evidence

rather justice demands that fair opportunity is to be provided to the

complainant (prosecution) to produce the evidence.

5. Thus, under such circumstances, the innocence or guilt of the

petitioner can only be determined after full-fledged trial and the

examining the PWs. It is settled dictum of law that the provisions of

Section 265-K and Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. should not normally be

pressed into action for decision of fate of a criminal case particularly,

when apparently there is probability of conviction after recording

evidence. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the reported

judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled as

Model Customs Collectorate, Islamabad v. Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi,

(2022 SCMR 1861), for convenience the relevant portion whereof is

reproduced as under:

8. There is no cavil to the proposition that by enacting sections 249-

A and 265-K, Cr.P.C., the Legislature provided power to acquit

an accused at any stage of the case if, after hearing the

prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, it

considers that the charge is groundless or that there is no

probability of the accused being convicted of any offence. But

acquittal, under the said sections, could be made only if there

was no probability of conviction of the accused. However, each

case must be judged on its own special facts and circumstances

and the reasons are to be recorded in support of conclusion

that charge is groundless or that there is no probability of

accused being convicted. If there is remote probability of

conviction then of course courts are not empowered to invoke

the said provisions i.e. 249-A and 265-K Cr.P.C. Reliance in this

regard may be placed on the case of The State through

Advocate-General, Sindh High Court of Karachi v. Raja Abdul

Rehman (2005 SCMR 1544) wherein it was held that though

there is no bar for an accused person to file application under

section 249-A, Cr.P.C. at any stage of the proceedings of the case

yet the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case will

have to be kept in mind and considered in deciding the viability

or feasibility of filing an application at any particular stage.

The special or peculiar facts and circumstances of a

prosecution case may not warrant filing of an application at a

stage. This Court in the case of Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar-ul-Islam

(PLD 2004 SC 298) did not approve decision of criminal cases on

an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. or such allied or

similar provisions of law, namely, section 265-K or section 561-

A, Cr.P.C. and observed that usually a criminal case should be allowed to be disposed of on merits after recording of the

prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under section

342, Cr.P.C., recording of statement of accused under section

340(2), Cr.P.C. if so desired by the accused persons and hearing

the arguments of the counsel of the parties and that the

provisions of section 249-A, section 265-K and section 561-A of

the Cr.P.C. should not normally be pressed into action for

decision of fate of a criminal case especially when apparently

there is probability of conviction after recording evidence.

6. As far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioner with

regard to the jurisdiction of ATC Court and non-attraction of crimes

with Anti-Terrorism Act are concerned. It is pertinent to mention here

that since a question in this regard was not agitated in the instant

petition, rather the instant petition pertains to acquittal of petitioner

under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to file a

separate application before the learned trial Court in this respect.

7. It has been observed that there is no embargo on the powers of

the trial Court to acquit an accused at any stage of trial and even

prior to framing of charge by exercising powers conferred upon it

under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. and such powers can only be exercised if

the trial Court comes to a conclusion that on the basis of evidence

available on record, there is no probability of accused being

convicted of the offence. Such powers are meant to prevent the

rigors of prolonged trial, when it was apparent from the record that

there was no probability of accused being convicted of the charge

levelled against him, but the complainant (prosecution) equally

deserved justice and fair treatment in that regard. The picture is

quite different in the instant case as the petitioner (accused) was

arrested at the spot, not only a huge quantity of Pakistani currency

was recovered from his possession, but 26 bank accounts record,

ATMs and ledger was also recovered, FIR was lodged promptly by

nominating and ascribing specific role to the petitioner (accused) by

the complainant and even under the law in such like cases, the sole

testimony of a complainant is enough for conviction, if it is truthful

and confidence inspiring. As such, the trial Court has rightly

exercised its powers by not allowing the application under Section

265-K Cr.P.C., as sufficient evidence is available on record connecting

the petitioner (accused) with the commission of crime and the

petitioner (accused) cannot take the advantage of his acquittal in

another crime, when the entire scenario is altogether different from

the case in hand. The learned counsel for petitioner (accused) has

failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by

the trial Court requiring interference of this Court. For the above reasons, the petition being not maintainable is hereby

dismissed. The trial Court is directed to adopt all possible

method/procedure for service of summons upon the witnesses and to

decide the case at the earliest.

JK/137Bal. Petition dismissed.