PLJ 2022 Quetta (Note) 15
Present: NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN AND ROZI KHAN BARRECH , JJ.
ASIF KHAN--Petitioner
versus
ANTI -TERRORISM COURT DERA ALLAH YAR
and another --Respondents
C.P. No. 76 of 2020, decided on 21.5.2020.
Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997) --
----Ss. 2(n) & 23-- Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365- A &
341--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Lodging of FIR --Application for transfer of case to ordinary
Court --Rejected --Abduction & demand of reason--Jurisdiction --Question of whether case was triable by ATC is
to be resolved in light of provisions of Act and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898--Challenge to --During course
of investigation after recording statements of alleged abductees, prosecution built up its case that petitione r and
co-accused have been claiming ransom from abductee--The alleged offence prima facie attracts provision of
section 2(n) of ATA which is exclusively triable by Anti -Terrorism Court as provided in Third Schedule of said
Act--Anti- Terrorism Court has rig htly assumed jurisdiction and framed charge against petitioner -- we could not
find any merit in instant petition for interference in impugned order --Petition dismissed. [Para 6 & 7] A, B & C
PLD 2020 SC 61 ref.
Mr. Muhammad Asif Reki , Advocate for Petition er.
Mr. Naveed Qambrani , Advocate for Complainant.
Mr. Abdul Latif Kakar , APG for State.
Date of hearing: 18.5.2020.
ORDER
Rozi Khan Barrech, J. --Petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article
199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to impugn the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by Anti -
Terrorism Court -I Dera Allah Yar at Dera Murad Jamali (hereinafter 'trial Court').
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that one Asghar Ali son of Karam Ali lodged FIR No. 31 of
2019 dated 5.11.2019 under Section 365- A and 34, PPC at Levies Thana District Jhal Magsi against the petitioner
Asif Khan and others with the allegation that on 4.11.2019 at 5:00 am the accused/petitioner and others armed with
rocket l aunchers came in the house of the complainant and forcibly abducted.Mahram Ali and Allah Dina to demand
ransom amount of Rs. 2,000,000/ -.
After completion of usual investigation challan was submitted before the trial Court, whereafter the
petitioner/accuse d filed an application under Section 23 of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 (the “ Act”) for transfer of
the case to ordinary Court. The trial Court after hearing arguments rejected the same vide order dated 20.01.2020.
Hence this petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the entire material available on
record.
4. To determine as to whether a particular case is triable by Anti- Terrorism Court or a Court of ordinary
jurisdiction, the Court has to tentatively examine the rec ord comprising of FIR, investigation report and final report
submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. The contents of the FIR narrated by the complainant in his application submitted before the Tehsildar Concerned reveal that his brother and nephew were abduct ed by the petitioner and
co-accused persons armed with rocket launchers for ransom. During the course of investigation the abductees
namely Mahram Ali and Allah Dina were recovered and their statements were recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.
before the police and under Section 164, Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, who also stated in their statements
that the accused abducted them for ransom. After completion of investigation challan was submitted before the trial
Court.
5. Whether with the given fac ts, the case was triable by the ATC is to be resolved in the light of the
provisions of the Act and Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
At the outset it will be expedient to reproduce the provisions of Section 365 -A, P.P.C., section 2(n) and
relevant extract of Third Schedule of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 which read below:
“365- A P.P.C. 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.”
“Section 2 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997: In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subjec t or
context;
(n) “Kidnapping for ransom” means the action of conveying any person from any place, without his
consent, or by force compelling or by any deceitful means inducing him, to go from any place, and unlawfully detaining him and demanding or attempting to demand, money, pecuniary or other
benefit from him or from another person, as a condition of his release.”
“The Third Schedule:
(1) Any act of terrorism within the meaning of this Act including those offences which may be added or
amende d in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of this Act.
(2) Any other offence punishable under this Act.
(3) Any attempt to commit, or any aid or abetment of, or any conspiracy to commit, any of the aforesaid
offences.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the above paragraph, the Anti -Terrorism Court to the
exclusion of any other Court shall try the offences relating to the following, namely:
(i) Abduction or kidnapping for ransom,
(ii)
(iii)
6. Bare reading of the FIR in this case reveals that complainant duly reported the alleged forcible abduction
of Mahram Ali and Allah Dina by the petitioner and co- accused. It is established that purpose of lodging the FIR is
merely to ignite the process of law. Duri ng the course of investigation after recording the statements of alleged
abductees, the prosecution built up its case that the petitioner and co -accused have been claiming ransom from the
abductee. The alleged offence therefore prima facie attracts the pro vision of section 2(n) of the ATA which is
exclusively triable by the Anti -Terrorism Court as provided in the Third Schedule of the said Act.
7. As is evident from the referred item of third schedule that offence of abduction or kidnapping for ransom
is ex clusively triable by Anti- Terrorism Court. On tentative assessment of the record, as referred herein above, the
learned Anti -Terrorism Court has rightly assumed the jurisdiction and framed charge against petitioner. Reliance in
this behalf is placed on the case titlted as Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61) and Farooq
Ahmed v. The State (2020 SCMR 78).
In view of the above discussion, we could not find any merit in the instant petition for interference in the
impugned order of the Judge Anti Terrorism Court -I Dera Allah Yar at Dera Murad Jamali. Hence instant petition
stands dismissed in limine.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissedThis 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.