' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---The occurrence in the case took place on 1-3-2007 at about 5-00 p.m. In which the son of complainant Tayyab was alleged to have been kidnapped by three unknown persons. A case bearing F.I.R. No,136 of 2007, dated 1-3-2007 was consequently registered at. Police Station Kahna Lahore under section 363 P.P.C. As per the record, offence under section 365-A P.P.C.
Was subsequently added by virtue of which the case became triable by Special Court established under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. After nomination of the accused through a supplementary statement recorded on 2-3-2007, the police arrested the accused including the petitioner and recovered the abductee on their pointation on 6-3-2007. ,
2. The petitioner, who is also an accused of the said case, submitted an application under section 23 of the Act before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,IV, Lahore questioning his jurisdiction to try the case on the premise that the case did not attract the provisions of Anti- Terrorism Act of 1997 and, therefore, prayed for the transfer of the case to the ordinary Court of plenary jurisdiction. The learned Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application on 23- 6-2007 which has led to the filing of the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the facts, and circumstances of the case do not attract the provisions of section 365-A, P.P.C. It has been argued that initially the police prepared a challan on 12-3-'2007 under section 363 P.P.C. But on an application moved by the complainant before the D.I.G. (Investigation) for proper investigation of the case, statement of' the Victim as well as supplementary statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded on 16-4- 2007 and consequently section 365-A, P.P.C. Had been added. The application submitted by the complainant contained a different version regarding the occurrence and recovery of the abductee, minor son of the complainant. It has also been argued that the wording constituting an offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. Was an afterthought and had been brought on the record through supplementary statement of the complainant and witnesses at a belated stage. Therefore, .The same was of no significance and the accused could not be charged on the basis thereof.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General as well as the learned counsel representing respondent No,4, the complainant, argued that sufficient material was available on the record to charge the accused with an offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. The witnesses as well as the victim had levelled and supported the allegation of kidnapping for ransom and that the contentions raised by the petitioner pertained to the merits of the case which could not be adjudicated upon without recording of evidence by the learned trial Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel as well as the Assistant Advocate-General and have gone through the documents placed on the file.
6. Minor son of the complainant was kidnapped by three persons on 1-3-2007 at about 5-00 p.m.
And the F.I.R. Regarding the occurrence was promptly lodged with the police. The F.I.R. Discloses the ages and physical description of the accused who had participated in the occurrence. On the very next day. The complainant-respondent No,4 through a supplementary statement nominated the petitioner and two others as accused who had kidnapped his son. We have noticed that in the said statement the complainant had mentioned that his son had definitely been kidnapped for ransom: that he had no enmity with anyone and that he was financially in a position to pay the kidnappers Rs,5 to 10 lacs. On 6-3-2007 i.e, after five days of the occurrence, the police succeeded in apprehending the accused including the petitioner and recovered the minor son of the complainant at their pointation. Since the F.I.R. Had been initially registered under section 363 P.P.C., therefore, the police without adverting to facts disclosed in the supplementary statement and without recording the statement of the victim proceeded to prepare the challan under section 363 P.P.C. The complainant submitted an application with the D.I.G. (Investigation) seeking proper investigation of the case, in consequence whereof the statement of the victim as well as the supplementary statements of the witnesses were 'recorded and based thereon, section 365-A P.P.C. Was added. The minor son of the complainant in his statement had fully implicated the petitioner and others with the offence of kidnapping for ransom. Challan in terms of the said offence has been submitted in the trial Court.
7. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that prima facie the offence under section 365-A P.P.C. Is made out which is a scheduled offence and is exclusively triable' by the learned Special Court established under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. Even otherwise, no other plausible reason or motive is discernible from the facts and circumstances of the case other than kidnapping of the minor for ransom. Insofar as the other contention of the petitioner that the complainant had narrated two different stories in the F.I.R. And the application submitted with the I.G. (Investigation), Lahore, suffice it to say that any contradiction in the two can be of benefit to the petitioner at the trial which can be validly utilized and exploited by the defence.
8. We have minutely examined the impugned orders of the learned Special Trial Judge and have not been able to detect any factual or legal infirmity therein.
9. For what has been discussed above, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.