' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31-1-2006 passed by Mian Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court I, Multan whereby the application for transfer of the trial of the case registered vide F.I.R.No,320 dated 22-8- 2005 under sections 324/427/148/149 P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 wa!
Dismissed. It has been prayed that the trial of the said case be withdrawn from the said Court and the same be entrusted to any ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction.
2. The brief facts of the case which was registered at the instance of Noor Shah respondent No,3 are that on 22-8-2005 at about 8-15 p.m. He along with his brother Ain Ullah and Faiz Ullah was coming back from Neelam Cotton Factory in his car No,4434-AB-Karachi and when they reached near railway-crossing Kaloo Wala, all of a sudden a white colour Corolla car model 1976 overtook the car of the complainant and stopped in front of the said car. The complainant found five persons in the car of the accused party out of which two accused, namely, Sultan petitioner No,1 and Muhammad Sahrif petitioner No,3 alighted. Both of them were armed with Klashnikovs. The said person were identified by the complainant party in the head-lights of the car. Both the said accused made straight firing causing injury on the right arm of the complainant. Front and back screens of the car were also broken. Pieces of the broken glasses also caused injuries on the right arm and chest of the complainant. The complainant and his companions save their lives by laying down in the car. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That as a result of the said firing, traffic was temporarily blocked and people of the vicinity were harassed. The assailants fled away from the spot in their car after believing that the complainant party had been finished. The motive of the occurrence was alleged to be the previous enmity between the parties.
3. After receipt of the challan, respondent No,2 i,e, the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court I, Multan framed the charge against the petitioners for the offences mentioned above. Muhammad Sharif petitioner submitted application under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 seeking transfer of the case from the Court of respondent No,2 but the said application was dismissed as mentioned above. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act is not attracted to the present case as the occurrence took place in the night time and there was no possibility of causing panic to the public and the injuries suffered by the complainant are also not serious in nature. It has further been contended that the alleged occurrence took place at a deserted place and there was no body around the place of occurrence as such spreading of panic at the site could not be visualized. The learned counsel went on to contend that the occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. Itself, was the outcome of the personal enmity against the parties.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that not only both the screens of the car in which the complainant party was travelling were broken, but the complainant also received a fire arm injury due to the firing of the accused party. Haji Amir Hussain who is eye-witness of the occurrence got his statement recorded before the police in which he stated that the traffic remained stopped at the place of occurrence in a queue of one mile. He has further contended that 24 empties of the bullets were recovered from the spot which manifestly show that the accused party had made reckless firing to finish the complainant party and to cause panic to the public and finally he contended that it was the trial Court which was possessed with the jurisdiction to determine whether the case was to be tried by the said Court or not.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
7. Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 provides the definition of "terrorism". In order to better appreciate the legal position, section 6(b) of the said Act which defines a "terrorist act" is reproduced as under:--- "6. Terrorism.---(1) In this Act, "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) .......
(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;"
8. A bare reading of the above quoted provision of law makes it crystal clear that it is not necessary that the commission of the offence might have created panic and terrorism amongst the people and the Courts have only to see whether the "terrorist act" was such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of the society. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as The State through Advocate general, N.W.F.P. Peshawar v. Muhammad Shafiq PLD 2003 SC 224 has also held as under:-- "We have to see the psychological impact created upon the minds of the people. It is also not necessary that the said act must have taken place within the view of general public so as to bring it within the encompass of the Act. Even an act having taken place in a barbaric and gruesome manner, if it had created fear and insecurity, would certainly come within the purview of the act."
9. In the present case the offence was committed on busy road. Traffic remained suspended in a queue of one mile due to the said act of terrorism which shows that panic had been created among the people. The act of the accused, prima facie caused fear and insecurity in the minds of the people. It has further come on the record that 24 empties of the bullets were recovered from the place of occurrence by the police which also shows that the accused had made reckless firing not only to kill the complainant party but also to frighten the general public. Both the screens of the car of the complainant party were broken. The complainant also received injury by the shot fired from klashnikov as also by the splinters of the broken screens The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Muhammad Mushtaq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others PLD 2002 SC 841 held that physical harm to the victim is not the sole criterion to determine the question of terrorism. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- "7. It would thus appear that ordinary crimes are not to be dealt with under the Act. A physical harm to the victim is not the sole criterion to determine the question of terrorism. What is to be seen is the psychological effect produced by the violent action or with the potential of producing such an effect on the society as a whole or a section thereof. There may be a death or injury caused in the process. Thus where a criminal act is designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the general public disturbing even tempo of life and tranquility of the society, the same may be treated to be a terrorist act. There may be just a few killings, random or targeted, resorted to with single mindedness of purpose. But nevertheless the impact of the same may be to terrorize thousands of people by creating a panic or fear in their minds."
Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble apex Court in the cases reported as Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704, Mst. Najam un Nisa v. Judge, Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (2003 SCM R 1323) and Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti v. Muhammad Saleem and others 2003 SCM R 1934. In all the above mentioned judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for determining the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court much emphasis has been laid on the point that if action of the accused had got the tendency to create a sense of insecurity in the minds of the people or section of the society, the case would fall within the jurisdiction of the Anti- Terrorism Court. It has also been held that it is not necessary that the said act must have created the panic rather the Courts are obliged to see only as to whether the crime had or had not the effect of striking terror or creating fear and insecurity in the people or any section of the people.
Similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Asad Ullah v. Muhammad Tariq and 2 others PLD 1002 Lah.
651.
10. Epitome of all the discussion made above is that act of the petitioners created sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the public and thus the same would fall within the ambit of sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, .1997 and as such the learned trial Court was quite justified in dismissing the application of the petitioners. However, it is further observed that the findings of this Court would not prejudice the case of the either party. This petition being without merit is dismissed.