' Petitioner Muhammad Rafiq Shahid along with others is facing trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad in Case F.I.R. No.642, dated 1-10-2002 under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sections 380/436/440/148/149, P.P.C. And section 16 of the Maintenance of the Public Order (XXXI of 1960) registered with Police Station, Khurrarianwala, District Faisalabad.
2. The said case is the stage of statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Of the accused.
3. The petitioner had moved an application under section 23 of the Act (supra) before the learned trial Court for sending case to the Court of Ordinary Jurisdiction in the matter.
4. The learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad seized of the case after hearing the parties dismissed his such application observing that he has the necessary jurisdiction in the matter.
5. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of his such order has assailed the same by way of the instant writ petition.
6. It has been submitted on his behalf that the act complained off as mentioned in the F.I.R. Can in no way be said to be one of "terrorism" and so the learned trial Court, has no jurisdiction to try him and others for the same and the case thus ought to have been transferred to a Court of ordinary jurisdiction and in this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Basharat Ali v. Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala (PLD 2004 Lah. 199); and that though the application in question was moved by the petitioner at a latter stage but this itself was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court constituted under the Act and hence it did not make any difference, if the same was made at a latter stage.
7. As against the same, the learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by leaned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned order saying that the act complained off is fully covered within the definition of word "terrorism" and so the learned trial Court has the jurisdiction in the matter and the application of the petitioner was rightly turned down; that the petitioner has moved the application for the purpose at a very belated stage when the trial of the petitioner and others is at an advance stage; and that the case of Basharat Ali v. Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala (supra) is not at all aptly applicable to the instant case.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of the available record.
9. The allegation against the petitioner and others nominated in the F.I.R. Is that they on 1-10-2002 at about 9-00 a.m. Formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and they all took out procession and at Chowk Makkoana blocked the road and there burnt the tyres and then reached the house of Mst. Amna Bibi, the sister of the complainant and there they broke open the doors and looted the valuable articles and damages the other articles lying there by setting these on fire by spinkling kerosene oil on the same and as a result thereof the doors and bed etc. Were butnt and they thereafter had also broke away the chairs, beds, outer door, windows, TV and other articles lying there and also demolished the four walls of the house. The fear and harassment was caused to the public-at-large due to their such act.
10. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the act complained off did not fall within the definition of "Terrorism" to have a look on the relevant provision of section 6 of the Act is necessary.
11. According to the same "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:--
(a) the action falls the meaning of subsection (2), and
(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; or
(c) involves stoning, brick-bating or any other form of mischief to spread panic.
12. On just Having a look on the allegation as contained in the F.I.R., it appears that the act complained off is fully covered within the definition of word "terrorism" as described in the Act.
13. The act complained off shows that a mob, perhaps in order to launch protest, had not only blocked the road at the above given place but also caused damage to the property lying in the house of the said sister of the complainant by sprinkling kerosene oil on the same and burnt these to ashes and had also looted valuables therefrom. This all did not suggest any private revenge or personal vendata on the part of the mob or the members of the unlawful assembly formed for the purpose.
14. The taking out procession and blocking the road and committing other above mentioned acts certainly were designed to overawe the Government or public or community to create sense of fear and insecurity in the society.
15. The act of damaging the house and property of the said sister of the complainant fully attracts the offence of "mischief" defined in subsection (g) of section 6 mentioned above. So, we have no option but to hold that the act complained off did fall within the meaning of word "terrorism".
16. It may also be mentioned here that every member of the procession did not necessary have any personal concern with the background of earlier motive incident mentioned in the F.I.R. The members of the unlawful assembly, perhaps had wanted to express their anger over the incident forming the motive behind the present incident mentioned in the F.I.R.
17. The instant case, when seen in the light of the above narrated facts, then the act complained off certainly fell within the meaning of word "Terrorism" as defined in the Act. The case of Basharat Ali v.
Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala (supra), this is not aptly applicable to the instant case. The learned Anti-Terrorism Court, thus has the jurisdiction to try the petitioner and his co-accused.
18. In view of this position, there is hardly any need to discuss the other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.
19. Hence, for the reasons stated above, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is open to no valid exception. The instant petition, therefore, is dismissed.