IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, CJ 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
Criminal petition No.1117-L of 2021 
(Against the judgment dated 23.06.2021 passed by the Lahore high 
Court Lahore in Crl. A. No.9865/2021 
 
 
 
 
Muhammad Irshad 
 
 
 
…..Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State through P.G. Punjab, etc. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Shahid Tabassum, ASC 
 
 
    
 
 
For the State:             
Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, 
 
Addl. Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Date of Hearing          
03.02.2022. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
    Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Name of Muhammad 
Irshad, petitioner, notified as an activist of a Proscribed 
Organization was placed in the Fourth Schedule to the Anti 
Terrorism Act, 1997 vide order dated 17.3.2015, pursuant 
whereto, he executed a bond with two sureties as contemplated 
by section 11-EE of the Act ibid whereunder he had undertaken 
to notify his movement to the police; he vanished from the scene 
inconsequence whereof, pursuant to registration of a First 
Information Report on 27.12.2015, he was declared a proclaimed 
offender. Finally arrested on 2.9.2020 after his return from 
Dubai; indicted under sections 11 EE(4) and 21-L of the Act ibid, 
he was returned a guilty verdict and to be respectively sentenced 
to 2-years and 5-years rigorous imprisonment with concurrent 
commutation, pre-trial period inclusive, vide judgment dated 
Cr.P.1117-L/2021                                                            -2- 
03.02.2021; upheld by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore 
High Court vide judgment dated 23.06.2021, leave to appeal 
wherefrom is being prayed for on the grounds that there was no 
occasion for the learned trial Judge to convict and sentence the 
petitioner under either provision of Anti Terrorism Act inasmuch 
as through an Amendment introduced by Ordinance 125 of 2002 
the expression Provincial Government was omitted and, thus, it 
was sole prerogative of the Federal Government to list a person as 
a proscribed person in the Fourth Schedule whereas petitioner’s 
name was placed in the said schedule by the Provincial 
Government, an exercise void ab initio. Second argument raised 
by the learned counsel is no less ingeniously articulated, 
according to him, disobedience of the bond did not constitute a 
substantive offence under Act and, thus, absence of a proscribed 
person cannot be viewed as absconsion, punishable under 
section 21-L thereof.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
Though 
impressive 
at 
first 
sight, 
nonetheless, 
submissions made at the bar are entirely beside the mark 
inasmuch as the Federal Government in exercise of powers 
vesting in it under section 33 of the Act had already delegated its 
powers to the Provincial Home Secretaries of the each Province as 
well as Chief Commissioner Islamabad Capital Territory vide 
notification dated 29th October, 2014; this being so petitioner’s 
placement in the Fourth Schedule by the Home Secretary Punjab 
on 17-3-2015 was an act well within remit of law.  
 
Subsection 4 of section 11 EE unambiguously provides that 
any person who violates any direction or order or any term of 
bond executed thereunder shall expose himself to punishment of 
imprisonment that may extend to three years or with fine or with 
both and, thus, any violation of bond clearly constitutes an 
offence punishable under the Act and, as such, the petitioner 
committed an offence under the Act and, therefore, was rightly 
prosecuted and convicted for his willful absence from law. Apart 
from examination of legal positions taken by the learned counsel 
at the bar, we have also gone through the record of the case to 
Cr.P.1117-L/2021                                                            -2- 
find that prosecution successfully drove home the charge against 
the petitioner on the strength of “proof beyond doubt” comprising 
oral as well as documentary evidence, leaving no space to 
entertain any hypothesis other than his guilt. Petition fails. Leave 
declined.  
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
3rd February, 2022 
Azmat/-