' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioners through this petition seek leave to appeal against the order dated 22-7-2004 passed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Criminal Revision No,81 of 2004 filed by them was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated, facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that on 19-5-2004 Ashraf Shahzad, complainant lodged F.I.R. No,71 of 2004 at Police Station Sher Shah, Karachi West, alleging therein that his brothers-in-laws, namely Azizullah, Raheemullah, Kareemullah, Habibullah, Naeemullah and Hameedullah are resident of Khan Building, Paracha Chowk, Sher Shah, Karachi. They invited his wife and children for recitation of Holy Qur'an in their house, where they were restrained. On 15- 5-2004 complainant's brothers, namely, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Pervaiz, Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Naeem along with his daughter Sadaf and two granddaughters went to the house of the petitioners in Khan Building to negotiate and rescue the detenus but they were also made hostages. Thereafter, petitioners also called Ashraf and Sarwar through his brother Muhammad Naeem for negotiation. Prior to that complainant had paid Rupees five hundred thousand to petitioner Azizullah through his brother Muhammad Naeem. On 16-5- 2004 complainant's elder brother Muhammad Akbar also went to admonish the petitioners and rescue the above mentioned detenus but he was also made hostages. Thereafter, petitioner used to talk on telephone with the complainant and asked for the payment of ransom for the release of the detenus else they would be done to death. On 19-5-2004 complainant Ashraf reported the matter to the police and case under section 365-A, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioners.
3. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against petitioners under section 365-A, P.P.C. And sections 2(m) and 6(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Administrative Judge who sent the same for trial to Anti-Terrorism Court No,III, Karachi.
4. Petitioners moved application under section 23 of the Act seeking transfer of case from Anti- Terrorism Court to Ordinary Court of law which was dismissed on 28-5-2004. The said order was assailed in Criminal Revision No,81 of 2004 before learned High Court of Sindh which was also dismissed vide impugned order.
5. We have heard Mr. Azizullah Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, Dr. Kazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and Mr. Iqtidar Ali Hashmi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the complainant at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that from the contents of F.I.R. No offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. Is made out. Neither any kidnapping for ransom had taken place nor has any of the alleged abductees been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. It was in order to bring the case within the ambit of the Act the Investigating Officer added section 2(m) of the Act in the charge-sheet. According to him, in fact there was family dispute between the parties and the registration of case was outcome of the same. He contended that for bringing an offence within the ambit of the Act, it is essential to examine that the said offence has nexus with the object of the Act and is covered by its sections (6), (7) and (8). He vehemently urged that from the perusal of the record, it is clear that ingredients of none of the above mentioned sections are attracted in this case, as such, the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court and is triable by an ordinary Court of law.
7. On the other side Messrs Iqtidar All Hashmi, learned Advocate Supreme Court and Dr. Kazi Khalid Ali, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh controverted the above contentions and supported the impugned order. According to them, it is not only the case of kidnapping for ransom but is also that of hostages taking. On the tentative assessment of F.I.R. And other relevant material collected during investigation, the prosecution has been able to bring on record that wife and children of the complainant were called by the petitioners in their house and were made hostages. Whereafter on 15-5-2004, the brothers and two granddaughters of the complainant who went to the house of petitioners for the release of the abductees were also made hostages. Not only this but an amount of Rs,5 lacs was accepted by the petitioners and demand for more ransom money was also made.
They further contended that the abductees were got released from the clutches of the petitioners after the exchange of firing in between the petitioners and the police. As a result of such firing one of the abductors Rahimullah sustained injuries who died later on. They lastly argued that the alleged offences have nexus with the object of the Act and are fully covered by its sections 6(2)(a), (b), (e) and (k) of the Act.
8. The main object to promulgate the Act was to prevent and control the acts of terrorism, sectarian violence, hijacking, hostages taking and kidnapping or abduction for ransom. It was for this purpose that the offences falling within the ambit of the Act were to be disposed of expeditiously by way of speedy trial. In the instant case, it is alleged that wife and children of the complainant were called by the petitioners in their house on the pretext of Qura'n Khani and were made hostages and demand of ransom for their release was made. Not only this but also the brothers and grand-daughter of complainant who went to the house of petitioners to rescue the above mentioned 'detenus were also made hostages. It is revealed from the investigation that police in order to rescue the hostages when arrived at the house of petitioners, firing was made upon them and in retaliation police also fired at the abductors resulting in the death of one of the abductors namely Rahimullah. As discussed above, the material available with the prosecution prima facie shows that the abductees were kidnapped and ransom of Rs,5 lacs was paid and further demand of ransom was also made and that the abductees were made hostages by the petitioners in their house. The above act created sense of fear or insecurity in the public as such the ingredients of sections 6 and 7 of the Act are attracted. In this context reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Farooq v. Ibrar and 5 others reported as PLD 2004 SC 917 wherein this Court in the similar circumstances, transferred the case from the ordinary Court of law to Anti- Terrorism Court. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by B this Court.
9. Accordingly, petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. In view of above, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,14-K of 2004 is also stands dismissed.