' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.---This petition, which was initially filed as a criminal revision and was subsequently converted in a writ petition vide order dated 27-9-2004, calls in question the jurisdiction of learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Multan (hereinafter to be referred as the AT Court) to hold the trial of Aleem Ashraf-petitioner, a minor/accused, involved in case F.I.R. No.139 registered on 1-6-2001 for offences under sections 353/452/186/380/506/148/149 of the P.P.C. Read with section 7-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) as P.S. Chehleek, upon the written complaint of one Tahira Parveen Bibi, Presiding Officer of Polling Station No.7 (Rifa-I-Aam High School) of Union Council No.40, Multan, stating therein that on the night in between 31-5-2001 and 1-6-2001, when after counting of votes, the result of Local Bodies Elections at Polling Station No.7 of Union Council No.40 (Rifa-I-Aam High School), Multan was being prepared, the petitioner along with his co-accused entered the Polling Booth by breaking its door, created disturbance, snatched away the envelopes containing ballot papers, tore them and subsequently threw the same there. Some of the accused, including the petitioner were apprehended at the spot by the army personnel and the police officials who were on duty there, while the other accused made good their escape along with the ballot papers. The accused also allegedly abused the complainant and her companions and belaboured them.
2. As the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted before the aforesaid Court, so cognizance was taken by it. An application for grant of post-arrest bail for the petitioner-juvenile was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, which was disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Court, Multan, on 11-6-2001 and the petitioner was allowed bail in the case. As the case was being entertained by the learned AT Court, so an application was moved by the petitioner-juvenile for passing an order to forward the case to Juvenile Court/Sessions Judge, Multan to the extent of the petitioner. This application was dismissed by the learned AT Court, holding that it had the jurisdiction to entertain, and adjudicate upon even the case of juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as the Ordinance), vide its order dated 13-3-2004, which has been challenged in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has argued that the learned Judge. AT Court-II, Multan, has got no jurisdiction even to hold a separate trial of Aleem Ashraf-petitioner under the Ordinance because the said Court was not a Court established and conferred powers under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. To amplify his submission, it has been stated by him that there must be conferment of powers by the High Court to try the case of a juvenile and as the learned Judge, AT Court has not been invested with such powers, therefore, the cognizance and holding of trial of the petitioner by the said Court is illegal and unlawful. The learned A.A.-G.
Has not vehemently opposed the assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.A.-G. For the State and perusing the record, we have found that the learned Judge, AT Court was of the view:--
(i) that his Court had enjoyed the designation of Juvenile Court because all the Courts of D&SJJ and that of AD&SJJ were declared Juvenile Courts under JJS Ordinance, 2000;
(ii) that as he was holding the office of Additional District & Sessions Judge (AD&SJ) prior to his posting as Judge. AT apart, therefore, he was empowered under the said Ordinance to the case of a juvenile;
(iii) that he, being an AD&SJ invested with the powers of Judge, AT Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, has got the exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case triable by the specially constituted Court under the ATA, 1997, whereas the ordinary Court had got no such jurisdiction to try the case under the said Act; and
(iv) that section 14 of. The Ordinance, 2000, has got no overriding effect upon the existing laws. It was to augment and support the existing laws. The only difference was that a juvenile had to be tried separately and death sentence could not be awarded to the juvenile.
5. So, adducing these reasons, the application of the writ petitioner was dismissed on 13--2004 by the learned AT Court.
6. According to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, section 2 (e) has defined the meaning of AT Court by providing that "Court" means as Anti-Terrorism Court established under section 13. From a bare reading of section 13 of the Act, it becomes clear that this AT Court is to be established by the Federal Government or if so directed by the Provincial Government through a notification in relation to an area specified therein. Subsection (2) of section 13 has provided that the Judge of that Court has to be appointed/designated by the Government in consultation with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.
7. From the above narration, it becomes clear that establishment of AT Court and the Presiding Officer of that Court are two different tasks to be taken by the Government mentioned in that section. While the AT Court can be constituted by the Federal Government or the Provincial Government if directed by the Federal Government. The Judge of that Court has to be appointed/designated by the Government in consultation with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court. In other words, a Judge is conferred special powers to try the cases under the ATA, 1997 and he has to preside over the Special Court constituted/established under section 13 of the Act, after the aforesaid Judge is appointed to that Court. He is, to act as a learned Judge, AT Court in relation to a specified area and for trial of the offences 'provided in the schedule attached with the Act, as envisaged by subsection (1). This Act was in operation when the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance came into being in the year 2000. Section 4 of the Ordinance has provided the establishment of Juvenile Courts. According to this provisions, the Provincial Government in consultation with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court by notification in the official Gazette shall establish one or, more Juvenile Courts for any local area within its jurisdiction, whereas the High Court has to confer powers on Juvenile Court as provided by subsection (2) of the Ordinance. In subsection (3), Juvenile Court has been granted exclusive jurisdiction to try cases in which a child is accused of commission of any offence. So, section 4 has provided a different method for establishment and conferment of powers of Juvenile Court and Presiding Officer of such Court. The JJSO, 2000, came into existence after the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 so it has to take precedence over the Act of 1997. If the intent of the legislature was to grant the power to Anti-Terrorism Court, it could have provided as such through a legislative enactment and could have conferred powers on the AT Court. There was no need to provide a different method or manner for establishment or conferment of powers as prescribed under section 4 of the Ordinance, 2000.
8. There is yet another aspect of this case. The Juvenile Court has been granted exclusive jurisdiction to try cases of an accused, who is a child and a separate Court with the separate nomenclature i.e. Juvenile Court has been established thfough section 4 of the aforesaid Ordinance. By vesting exclusive jurisdiction to the Juvenile Court the interpretation of law is that all the other Courts unless established under section 4 of the Ordinance, lose their jurisdiction to try such an accused. Establishment of Juvenile Court has to be made through a notification in the official Gazette. In the instant case, the learned Judge AT Court has not been designated as Juvenile Court through any notification in the Official Gazette. The reasoning of the learned Judge, AT Court that all the AD&SJJ have been conferred powers of Juvenile Court may be correct and may grant him power as a Presiding Officer, but he has not been posted as such to any Juvenile Court. So, the other essential component of the establishment of Juvenile Court is deficient in the instant case. AT Court has not been declared by any notification in the official Gazette to be a Juvenile Court also. The sole and solitary power holding by a Judge cannot grant the learned AT Court, to act as a Juvenile Court. An analogical deduction can be found in cases registered under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act (XXV of 1997), in which the Government of Punjab has especially notified through its Notification No.SO/(JUDL.), II (14) 2000 dated 7-10-2002 the conferment of the powers of Juvenile Court upon the Special Courts established by the Federal Government for the purposes of Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. In other words, Special Court established under the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 was declared as Juvenile Court under section 4(1) of the Ordinance, 2000, through that notification. Otherwise, the aforesaid Court or its Presiding Officer could not display himself the Presiding Officer of Juvenile Court. This notification supports our view that initially there must be established a Juvenile Court through notification and thereafter the powers under subsection 2 of section 4 of Ordinance, 2000 be conferred upon it by the High Court. It is, therefore, that vide Letter No.15400. JOB(1)/VI.F.6, dated 18-9-2001 the Lahore High Court had awarded powers under section 4 (2) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 upon all the Additional Sessions Judges and Civil Judges-cumJudicial Magistrates in the Punjab for the trial of offences within their respective jurisdiction under the Ordinance.
9. So, the result and crux of the whole discussion is that a Judicial Officer might hold powers but unless he is posted in or declared as Judge of a Juvenile Court or declared/granted the power of Juvenile Court to hold such Court, he cannot entertain, hear or adjudicate cases with regard to a Juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. As the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, has not been declared as Juvenile Court, therefore, even if the powers be vested with the Presiding Officer of such Court, he cannot try, entertain and adjudicate the case of a juvenile.
10. As regards the grounds for rejection of the application of the petitioner by the learned Judge, AT Court, he has got the special jurisdiction to try the offences mentioned in the schedule attached to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. It may be pointed out that the learned Judge, AT Court has got the exclusive power and jurisdiction to try offences of specified sections, while the Juvenile Court has been established for the trial of juveniles irrespective of the offences. In other words, a juvenile, who has committed offence of any sort or under section of any Act, is to be tried by a Juvenile Court.
The jurisdiction is not dependant upon any specific section of the offence. The jurisdiction of Juvenile Court is dependent on the person of a specific class i.e. Juveniles, while the jurisdiction of AT Court only extends to offences of particular sections. Juvenile Court is more extensive as it encircles all the offences but is limited only to a class of person, i.e. Juvenile. So, we do not accept the reasoning advanced by, the learned Judge. AT Court-II, Multan for rejection of the application of Alcem Ashraf, juvenile accused/ petitioner.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, we ,accept this petition and declare the impugned order dated 13-3-2004 passed by the learned. Judge, AT Court as illegal and unlawful and set aside the same. Consequently, the case of Aleem Ashraf, petitioner is directed to be referred to learned Sessions Judge, Multan, who shall entrust it to the competent Juvenile Court for its trial in accordance with law.