Nadeem Zeb etc Vs The State

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

(Judicial Department)

Cr.R.No.38-A/2026

Nadeem Zeb etc.

Petitioners.

Versus.

The State etc.

Respondents.

Present: M/s Wajih-ur-Rehman Khan Swati, Mazhar Khan Jadoon and Umman Ayub, Advocates for the petitioners.

Malik Amjid Inayat, Additional AG for the State.

Mr. Atif Ali Jadoon, Advocate for the complainant.

Date of hearing: 28.09.2026

JUDGMENT

ABDUL FAYAZ, J.- Through this single judgment, this Court intends to decide this and the connected Criminal Revision bearing No. 47-A/2026, as both the petitions have been brought against the same order passed by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Hazara Division, Abbottabad.

2.Through instant Criminal Revision No.38-A of 2026, petitioners namely Nadeem Zaib and three others, while through connected Criminal Revision

No.47-A of 2026, petitioner Mst. Rida Jadoon, have called in question the order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Anti-Terrorism Court, Hazara Division, Abbottabad, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed their application seeking alteration of charge and deletion of Section 365-A PPC from the charge framed against them.

3.Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant criminal revisions are that the petitioners are facing trial in case FIR No.1265 dated 05.12.2025 registered under Sections 302/364/201/202/34 PPC, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 365-A PPC at Police Station Cantt: District Abbottabad. Upon completion of investigation, complete challan was submitted before the learned Anti-Terrorism Court, Hazara Division, Abbottabad, whereafter copies of relevant documents were supplied to the accused and charge was framed against them under the relevant provisions of law including Section 365-A PPC.

4.The record reflects that prior to framing of charge, the petitioners had approached the learned trial Court through an application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, seeking transfer of

the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction on the plea that although Section 365-A PPC was incorporated in the case, however, the prosecution failed to attribute any design, purpose or intent contemplated under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and, therefore, the Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, whereafter the matter was brought before this Court through Constitutional Petition No.672-A/2026. This Court, vide judgment dated 19.05.2026, dismissed the said constitutional petition while holding as under:

"For what has been discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Anti-Terrorism Court, Hazara Division, Abbottabad has rightly assumed jurisdiction in the matter and has committed no illegality in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The offence under Section 365-A PPC being a scheduled offence within the meaning of Section 2(n) read with Entry No.4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 is exclusively triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the learned Anti- Terrorism Court, Hazara Division, Abbottabad suffers from no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The instant as well as connected petition being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed."

5.After dismissal of the said constitutional petition, the learned trial Court proceeded with the matter and framed charge against the petitioners.

Subsequently, the petitioners moved application seeking deletion of Section 365-A PPC from the charge, which was dismissed through the impugned order dated 16.06.2026. Hence, this and the connected criminal revisions.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that mere incorporation of Section 365-A PPC in the challan would not justify framing of charge under the said provision; that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate the essential ingredients of the said offence; and that the learned trial Court has erred in maintaining the said charge. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Additional AG

opposed the revisions and supported the impugned order.

7.Arguments heard and record perused.

8.Before examining the factual controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of law. Section 365-A PPC reads as under:

"365-A. Kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security, etc.— Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person for the purpose of extorting from the person kidnapped or abducted, or from any person interested in the person kidnapped or abducted, any property, whether movable or immovable, or valuable security, or to compel any person to comply with any other demand, whether in cash or otherwise, for obtaining release of the person kidnapped or abducted, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to forfeiture of property."

A plain reading of the above provision demonstrates that the essence of the offence is not confined merely to kidnapping or abduction, rather the same is attracted where such kidnapping or abduction is committed with the object of extorting property,

valuable security, ransom, or compelling the victim or any other person to comply with any other demand, whether in cash or otherwise, coupled with the circumstances specified in the provision. The intention or purpose behind the act is, therefore, the determining factor for applicability of Section 365-A PPC.

9.In the present case, the material collected during investigation, at this stage, cannot be ignored. The record shows that allegedly deceased Dr. Warda had entrusted 67 tolas gold ornaments to petitioner Mst. Rida Jadoon, wife of petitioner Waheed Ahmed. It has further been alleged that the deceased repeatedly approached petitioner Rida Jadoon for return of the said gold ornaments, but the same were not returned. The record further reveals that petitioner Parvez recorded his confessional statement before the Court on 15.12.2025, petitioner Adil recorded his confessional statement on 26.12.2025, whereas petitioner Faisal recorded his confessional statement on 31.12.2025. Needless to observe that evidentiary value, voluntariness and admissibility of such confessional statements are matters to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence and hearing the parties. However, at the stage of framing of charge, such material cannot be completely brushed aside when it prima facie discloses a sequence of events requiring trial. The said

statements, coupled with other material available on record, prima facie suggest that the alleged occurrence was not a sudden act but was preceded by planning and preparation. The deceased was allegedly abducted in a deceptive manner so as not to enable her to understand the design of the accused persons. As per the prosecution case, she was taken to an under-construction house where she was allegedly done to death. Statements of witnesses, including servants of the accused persons, prima facie indicate planning and coordination amongst the accused regarding the alleged abduction. It is also reflected from the record that after the alleged abduction, cheques of substantial amounts were allegedly obtained from the deceased, apparently under circumstances suggesting coercion and threat to her life, and thereafter she was allegedly murdered. These circumstances, if proved during trial, may have direct relevance regarding the purpose and object behind the alleged kidnapping and abduction.

10.At this stage, this Court is not required to record a final finding regarding guilt or innocence of the petitioners or to evaluate the evidentiary worth of the prosecution material. The only question is whether the material available on record discloses existence of a prima facie case requiring trial under the relevant provisions of law.

11.In the Code of Criminal Procedure, a complete mechanism has been provided for framing of charge.

The object of framing a charge is to apprise the accused of the specific allegations levelled against him by the prosecution, enabling him to effectively prepare and conduct his defence. At the same time, the charge provides a concise outline of the accusation to the prosecution, thereby guiding it to lead evidence in support of the allegations so framed. Thus, framing of charge serves a dual purpose: it enables the prosecution to establish its case in accordance with the allegations and affords the accused a fair opportunity to meet and rebut the same in accordance with law. Section 221 Cr.P.C. provides:

"221. Charge to state offence.— (1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.

(2)Specific name of Offence: Sufficient description. If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.

(3)How stated where offence has no specific name. If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.

(4)The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge.

(5)What implied in charge. The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charge was fulfilled in the particulars case.

(6)Language of charge. The charge shall be written either in English on in the language of the Court.

(7)Previous Conviction when to be set out. If the accused having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge. If such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it any time before sentence is passed.”

12.The object of framing of charge is to provide clear notice to the accused regarding the allegations they are required to meet during trial. At this stage, the Court is neither required to conduct a meticulous examination of the prosecution evidence nor to determine whether the prosecution would ultimately succeed. The charge is framed where the material placed before the Court raises a reasonable presumption that the accused has committed an offence triable by the Court. In the case of “Zain Shahid Vs. The State and another” reported as

2024 SCMR 843, honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to hold that;

“Framing of charge is the foundation of trial, with a purpose and object to enable accused to know the exact nature of allegations and the offences with which he is charged, so that he is given reasonable opportunity to prepare his case and defend himself. Similarly, it enables the prosecution to produce relevant evidence in support of its case against the accused in order to prove the charge. Framing of proper charge is therefore, significant for the court concerned to be cautious regarding the real points in issue, so that evidence could be confined to such points and to reach a correct conclusion.”

13.Learned counsel for the petitioners also relief upon the ibid judgment by referring para-5 thereof, wherein it was held that;

“The Trial Court while framing the charge, did not specify as to which of the sub-clause of section 11-H of the ATA of 1997 was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no evidence on the record to suggest that the petitioner was guilty of an offence either (a) invites another to provide money or other property, he receives money or other property, provides money or other property; and (b) intended that it

should be used or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purpose of terrorism or by a terrorist or by an organization concerned in terrorism. The FIR, the police report and the other material available on the record were insufficient for the Trial Court to frame charge against the petitioner under any of the clauses of Section 11-H of the ATA of 1997, yet defective and vague charge was framed under the stated offences, without mentioning in detail the purported act of the petitioner, which constitutes an offence. This is a classic example of defective charge, which had misled the petitioner. In absence of relevant information and evidence to prima facie constitute an offence, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have refrained itself from framing of charge against the petitioner. The fact remains that there was lack of ingredients of any of the subsections of section 11-H of the ATA of 1997, the prosecution continued to produce irrelevant evidence in this behalf. The witnesses produced by the prosecution did not establish the commission of an offence, but still the petitioner was held guilty of offences under section 11-H(i) and (ii) of the ATA of 1997 and was sentenced for a period of ten years by the fora below, without specifying the sentence separately for each subsection. This act of the Trial

Court has seriously prejudiced the petitioner by convicting him for an offence, which was not committed by the petitioner, nor was it mentioned in the charge framed against him, hence, it is a failure of justice.”

Learned counsel contended that in the instant case too, the ingredients of Section 365-A PPC were not attracted, therefore, the learned trial Court should have refrained itself from indicting the petitioners under Section 365-A PPC. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, with utmost respect, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in the referred judgment, the offence as well as the particular subsections of Section 11-H were not specified in the Charge and even after recording of prosecution evidence, no offence within the meaning of any of subsections of Section 11-H could be made out, but even then the accused was convicted under Section 11-H(i) and 11-H(ii) of the ATA of 1997 to ten years imprisonment without specifying the quantum of his sentence under Section 11-H(i) and 11- H(ii) PPC. Whereas in the instant case, the prosecution evidence has not yet started and the charge under Section 365-A PPC has been framed by the learned trial Court, keeping in view the version of prosecution that “Dr.

Warda was abducted in a deceitful manner for the purpose of extorting cheques from her”. The charge under the relevant head reads;

“That you the above named accused along with dead co-accused named above on 04/12/2025 at 11:50 hours in pursuance of your above elaborated conspiracy, deceitfully abducted lady Dr. Warda Mushtaq from DHQ Hospital, Abbottabad during her duty house and took her to the house of you accused Mst. Rida Jadoon, situated in Rehmania Street near Jadoon Plaza where you accused extorted five (05) bank cheques of rupees eighty-three lacs 9rs. 83,00,000/- which you accused Rida Jadoon elaborated also in your application dated 05/12/2025) and your such extortion of valuables during her deceitful abduction makes you accused liable u/s 365-A PPC and within the cognizance of this Court.”

If such portion of the charge is omitted, then the charge would become defective for the reason that it would not state the charge regarding allegations of abduction of Dr. Warda Mushtaq and extortion of cheques from her and thus the accused may claim that they were deprived of the opportunity to defend themselves regarding such allegations. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that ingredients of Section 365-A PPC are not made out, is essentially a matter requiring appreciation of evidence which exercise

would be done by the learned trial Court at appropriate stage, however, at this stage, in view of the material available on record, the learned trial Court has correctly framed charge under Section 365-A PPC.

14.It is also significant that the issue regarding applicability of Section 365-A PPC and jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court has already been examined by this Court in Constitutional Petition No.672-A/2026. The said determination has attained finality. The subsequent application seeking deletion of Section 365-A PPC was, in substance, another attempt to seek reconsideration of an issue already settled by this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to be an attempt by the petitioner to delay the proceedings rather than seeking any genuine redress of a legal grievance. Such repeated challenges cannot be permitted to impede the course of trial, particularly when no prejudice or failure of justice has been demonstrated.

15.The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and can only be exercised where the impugned order suffers from illegality, material irregularity, jurisdictional defect or patent miscarriage of justice. No such defect has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. Upon examination of the record, relevant provisions of law and the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has rightly declined

deletion of Section 365-A PPC from the charge. The material available on record, particularly the circumstances surrounding the alleged abduction, obtaining of valuable security/cheques and subsequent murder, prima facie attracts consideration of the said provision during trial.

16.Consequently, both the criminal revision petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed. The learned Anti- Terrorism Court, Hazara Division, Abbottabad shall proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with law and decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made herein, which are only tentative in nature for the purpose of deciding the present revisions.

Announced.

Tufail/* JUDGE

(S.B)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Fayaz