' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J..---The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-10- 2002, passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court No.III, Karachi, in Special Case No.46 of 2002, under section 8(d) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1997"), try which the learned Judge had acquitted the respondents.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 10-9-2002, the respondents were apprehended by the police. From their search audio-cassettes and books were secured from each of them alongwith arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the said material contained abusive and insulting material to Shia sect of Islam and by such material sectarian hatred was likely to stir up. The respondents were brought to the police station where the F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. After usual investigation the respondents were challaned before the Administrative Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court, Karachi, from where the case was assigned to Anti-Terrorism Court No.III, Karachi, for trial according to law.
4. On 30-10-2002 a charge under section 8(d) of Act, 1997, was framed against the respondents but they pleaded not guilty. In support of the case, prosecution examined the following witnesses:-- S.NO.P.W.No. NAMES DESCRIPTION 01 P.W.1 S.I. Syed Basharat Hussain ShahComplainant arrested the respondent and secured the audio cassettes and books from each of them.
02 P.W.2 Mr. Arshad MehmoodMashir of the recovery and arrest 03 P.W.3 Inspector Irshad Ahmed SohailInvestigating Officer.
5. The respondents in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied all the allegations of the prosecution. They claimed that they were arrested before the alleged incident and recovery. They produced newspaper cutting and documents in support of their claim. The respondents neither examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence.
6. After considering the material available on the record the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents under the impugned judgment.
7. The State through Advocate-General Sindh has filed the present appeal to challenge the impugned judgment.,
8. We have heard the Ad41itional Advocate-General Sindh and llarused the record of this case velry carefully. The learned A.A.-G. Has stated that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and audio cassettes and books have been secured from the possession of the respondents; that the said material contained sounds and writing which are threatening, abusive and insulting to the Shia sect, therefore, the case has been proved against the respondents and hence he requested for setting aside the impugned judgment.
9. We have given due consideration to the arguments. The witnesses have deposed that some audio-cassettes and, books were secured from the possession of the respondents. The perusal of section 8(d) of Act, 1997, shows that mere possession of audio-cassettes and books is not enough to constitute the offence but if the said material was being carried with intent to display or publish by the said persons or by any other person and thereby they intended to stir up sectarian hatred or which was likely to stir up sectarian hatred then only section 8(d) or Act, 1997 would come into play.
For convenience sake section 8(d) of Act, 1997, is reproduced hereunder:- "8. Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarianhatred.---A person who has in his possession written material or a recording or visual images or sounds which are threatening, abusive or insulting with a view to their being displaced or published by himself or another, shall be guilty of an offence if"
(i) he intends thereby to stir up sectarian hatred; or
(ii) having regard to-all the circumstances, sectarian hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
10. A perusal of this section reveals that a double intention has been provided in this offence to attract the ingredients of provisions. The first intention is that the person from whose possession the material is secured intended to display or published the same and secondly the said display and publication was made with intent to stir up sectarian hatred or which was likely to do so. In the present case the prosecution have only shown that certain audio-cassettes and books were secured but the required two intentions as provided under section 8(d) of Act, 1997, haVe not been proved as no evidence has been led by the prosecution nor such inference can be drawn from the evidence .Brought on the record by the prosecution. Thus, the main ingredients of section 8(d) of the Act, 1997, have not been proved in this case.
11. The learned trial Judge has rightly held that ingredients of the said section are not attracted in the circumstances of the present case. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, therefore, it does not require any interference.
12. By our short order dated 29-4-2003, we had dismissed the Special ATA Appeal No.85 of 2002, in limine and above are the reasons for the same.