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.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.