Petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No. 14/2007. 'dated 20.01.2007 for the offences under Sections 324/440/148/149. P.P:C. Registered at Police Station Bhera, District Sargodha.
2. Learned Special Judge Anti-terrorism Court, Sargodha. On coming to. Know about the said case through newspaper, while exercising his jurisdiction under Section 19(3) of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 read with Section 190(C), Cr.P.C, summoned the record of the case and after Going through the file vide order dated 23.01.2007 directed the S.H.O, concerned to apply Section 7 of the Anti-terrorism Act is FLR., forthwith and then to proceed for further investigation strictly on merits. Relevant portion of the order reads as under:- In view of above I direct S.H.O, to apply Section 7 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 in F.I.R, forthwith and then to proceed for further investigation strictly on merits without being influenced from any observation contained in this order. Record shall be produced again to show progress in investigation on 26.01.2007. Copy of the order be supplied to S.H.O, free of cost for reference."
3. Through the instant petition legality of the said order has been challenged on the grounds .That ingredients of Section 7 of Anti-terrorism Act are not attracted in the circumstances of the case and learned Special Judge while exercising his power under Section 19(3) of the ibid Act has erroneously directed the Investigating Officer to apply Section 7 of the said Act.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. For deciding the matter, a glance at the relevant provisions of law i.e. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 is necessary. The said subsection leads as under:- Section 19: Procedure and Powers of (Anti-terrorism Court):
(i) .........
(2).........
(3).........
(3; . The Anti-terrorism Court may directly take Cognizance of a case triable by such-Court without the case being sent to it under Section 190 of the Code.
The bare perusal of said provision of law reveals that Special Judge is competent to take cognizance in a matter falling within the ambit of Anti-terrorism Act. 1997 directly but the said provision is absolutely silent qua the authority of the Trial Court whereby it could direct the Agency to conduct the investigation on particular lines If the Special Judge was of the opinion that circumstances of this case attract the provisions of Section 7 of Anti- terrorism Act. Then he should have taken the cognizance and proceeded with the matter. Though the word cognizance has not been defined either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 but the same has been interpreted by the Courts as a judicious application of mind to proceed further in the matter i.e. Calling the accused framing charge, summoning the evidence etc In case titled Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Noor Muhammad and others (PLD 1967 Lahore 176). It has been observed that Magistrate can be . Said to have taken cognizance or offence only when he decides to proceed against offender with a view to determine his guilt and the said stage does not arise unless police submits challan under Section 173. Cr.P.C. Similarly in case titled Muhammad Hanif and another v: The State (1979 P Cr.L J. 1078) (D.B) taking cognizance has been defined as conscious application- of judicial mind by the Court .To determine the guilt of the accused.
Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- 'Therefore, keeping in view all these situations and the essential ingredients deliberated in the precedent eases, it can be said -that in the context of criminal proceedings, a Magistrate on a Court can be deemed, to take cognizance of a case when it consciously applies its judicial mind to the facts placed before it and then decides to proceed with the matter in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code with the ultimate object of determining the guilt of the offender."
The Courts are created/.Established for doing justice between the parties and not for the purpose, of giving guidelines to the agency to collect the data for proving certain charges 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.