2018 Y L R 1782
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar and Zaheer- ud-Din Kakar, JJ
MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others ---Petitioners
Versus
SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI -TERRORISM COURT -II, QUETTA and another ---
Respondents
C. P. No.508 of 2017, decided on 12th June, 2017. (a) Anti -Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) ---
----Ss. 6 & 12---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.173---Jurisdiction of Anti -Terrorism
Court ---Determination ---Anti-Terrorism Court, for taking cognizance and conducting trial of
offences was to s ee that on what basis allegations were made in the FIR; that what was the
material collected during investigation and surrounding circumstances; that whether alleged
offence had any nexus with the object of the case; that particular act was act of terroris m or
not; that there existed motivation, object, deign and purpose behind the act; that act had created fear and insecurity in the public or in a section of public or community or in any sect; that act had created fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and s ense of insecurity among the people in the
particular area---All said ingredients amounted to terror and as such fell within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 and would be triable by Anti -Terrorism Court.
The State through Advocate General , N.W.F.P. v. Muhammad Shafiq PLD 2003 SC
224 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 392, 511, 353, 337- A, 337- D, 186, 147, 148 & 149--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Robbery, attempting to commit offence punishable with imprisonment
for life or a shorter term, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, shajjah, jaifah, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism ---Dismissal of petition for
transfer of case from Anti -Terrorism Court to ordinary criminal court ---Petitioners contended
that provisions of S.6 of Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 were not attracted in the case and offences
mentioned in the FIR had no nexus with the definition of said section of the Act ---Validity ---
Prosecution case was that petitioners committed offences on the main road, target was Security Force Officers ---During scuffle, officials sustained injuries and petitioners tried to snatch
official weapons from Security Force personnel ---Petitioners were overpowered and Security
Force personnel recovered different types of weapons and rounds from the possession of petitioners ---Act of the petitioners on the main road created fear and insecu rity to the general
public ---Act of the petitioners apparently involved serious violence against the members of the
law enforcing agency, as such, case prima facie fell under S.6(m) and (n) of Anti -Terrorism
Act, 1997---Anti Terrorism Court therefore, had exclusive jurisdiction to try the case ---
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Abdul Kabir Khan for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J. --- The petitioners through this petition under Article
199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 assails the validity of order dated 24.4.2017 "the impugned order", passed by the Special Judge, Anti -Terrorism Court -II, Quetta
"the trial Court", whereby an application for transfer of the case was dismissed.
2. Precisely stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.9.2016 at about 5:15 p.m, the
complainant Captain Adnan Ishaq of 74 Wing, Chiltan Rifles, lodged FIR No.264 of 2016, under Sections 337- AD, 353, 392, 511, 186, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. r ead with section 7 ATA
with Satellite Town Police Station, Quetta against the petitioners with the allegations that on the fateful day, he (complainant) along with other FC personnel were checking the vehicles. Meanwhile, one Land Cruiser bearing registrat ion No.LEF -20 having black glasses, wherein
three armed gunmen were present, came from western side, which was stopped and on query a
permit was showed which was not acceptable. Then a person, whose name was later on known as Haji Sadiq, said that no one c ould stop him, thus, a quarrel took place which resulted in
causing injury to sepoy Mureed Abbas and they also attempted to snatch the official weapon from sepoy Akmal. The FC personnel overpowered the petitioners and recovered different types of weapon and rounds, detail mentioned in FIR.
3. After completion of investigation. challan of the case was submitted before the trial
Court. During pendency of the case, an application under section 23 of the ATA, 1997 was moved on behalf of the accused (petitioners ). The trial Court, through order dated 26.4.2017
rejected the application, hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the
trial Court is against the law; that the trial Court has mis -appreciated the facts of the case; that
the provisions of section 6 of ATA, 1997 not attracted in this case; that the offences mentioned in the FIR have no nexus with the definition of section 6 of the Act. Finally, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order and transfer of the case to the ordinary Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone through the available
record. In order to determine as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit of section 6 of Anti -Terrorism Act, 19 97, it is essential to have a glance over the allegations made in the
FIR, material collected during investigation and surrounding circumstances. It is also necessary to examine whether the ingredients of alleged offence have any nexus with the object of t he
case as contemplated under sections 6, 7 and 8 thereof. Whether a particular act is an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object design and purpose behind the said act is to be seen. It
is also to be seen as to whether the said act has created a s ense of fear and insecurity in the
public or in a section of the public or community or in any sect and, whether the action results in striking terror or creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in the particul ar area it amounts to terror and such an action squarely falls within the
ambit of section 6 of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 and shall be triable by a Special Court
constituted for such purpose.
6. Section 6 of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 provides the def inition of "terrorism". In
order to better appreciate the legal position. Section 6(b) of the said Act which defines a
"terrorist act" is reproduced as under:
"6. Terrorism .---(1) In this Act, "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where
(a)
(b) The use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the
Government or the public or a section of the public or community or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society."
7. A bare reading of the above quoted provision of law makes it crystal clear that Courts
have only to see whether the "terrorist act" was such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of t he society. The
honourable Supreme Court in a case reported as The State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P. Peshawar v. Muhammad Shafiq PLD 2003 SC 224 has held as under: --
"We have to see the psychological impact created upon the minds of the people. It i s
also not necessary that the said act must have taken place within the view of general public so as to bring it within the encompass of the Act. Even an act having taken place in a barbaric and gruesome manner, if it had created fear and insecurity, would certainly
come within the purview of the act."
8. In the present case, the petitioners have committed offence on the main road, target was
Frontier Corps officers and officials and during scuffle with the FC officials, sepoy Mureed Abbas sustained injurie s and they (petitioners) also tried to snatch official weapons from FC
personnel. They were overpowered and the FC personnel recovered different types of weapons and rounds from their possession. The act of the petitioners on main road created fear and insecurity to the general public. Moreover, act of the petitioners apparently involves serious
violence against the members of the law enforcement agency (F.C.) as such, case prima facie falls under section 6(m) and (n) of Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, Anti-Terrorism Court
has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the case, as such, we do not find merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
JK/106/Bal. 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.