' GHULAM DASTAGIR A. SHAHANI, J.---Through this Revision Application, one Huzoor Bux son of Muhbat Khan, has assailed the impugned order dated 29-1-2008, passed by the learned Anti- Terrorism Court-I, Karachi, dismissing the application moved under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for transfer of Special 'Case Nos.27/07 and 28/07 from Anti-Terrorism Court I, Karachi to an ordinary (Sessions) Court. According to the applicant no offence which is being triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 is made out as there was no payment or demand of ransom for the release of victim/complainant (Muhammad Ramzan) even F.I.R. Itself does not show any other act which is exclusively triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
2. The facts in nutshell are that on 22-7-2007 complainant (Muhammad Ramzan) at 2315 hours while going on his motorcycle, of Honda .Company bearing Regn.No,RIT-9618, when reached near Pipri graveyard Naseerabad Road was intercepted by (3) bandits having pistols riding on motorcycle, on gunpoint extorted from him a purse containing cash of Rs,7500 and prize bonds three in number of Rs,4000 each, Sony Ericson Mobile telephone set and forced him to sit on their motorcycle, and due to his reluctance one of the culprits gave him butt blow on his head, and near Adil Kanta Point, a police Van emerged and one of the culprits told other companion in Sindhi language to open the fire who consequently did so, police also fired in return, in addition to dashing the motorcycle of culprits and taking advantage of situation, complainant started running and crying that 3 bandits were kidnapping him for ransom. Complainant further states that accused fired at him, as well as police with intention to commit murder and police also made counter firing in defence and succeeded in catching one of the accused while others decamped. On inquiry captured culprit, disclosed his name as Hazoor Bux, police secured from his possession unlicensed Pistol bearing No,9386RAC66 of .3U bore with magazine containing (2) live bullets and one empty magazine from pocket of his shirt, and (4) empty shells from a place of incident. Arrested accused disclosed that other culprits were Shafiq and Nadir Taggar, complainant quoted the names of Yameen and Muhammad Aslam as eye-witnesses of the incident and complained against accused Hazoor Bux, Shafiq and Nadir, lodged report under sections 365-A, 392, 353, 324, 337-A-I, P.P.C. As Crime No,73 of 2007 at Police Station Bin. Qasim, while S.H.O. Abdul Ghaffar of Police Station Bin Qasim also registered a separate case against accused. Hazoor Bux for offence under section 13-D Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 being crime No,74 of 2007. Both the cases were assigned at AVCU Karachi to Inspector Muhammad Babar for investigation, who during process added sections 419/468/471, P.P.C. And after usual investigation submitted separate challans before Administrative Judge, ATCs, Karachi Division, on 11-8-2007 who accepted the Challans and transferred both the cases for disposal according to law. However, S,P.P. Moved an application under section 235, Cr.P.C.
For amalgamation of both the cases and trial Court allowed such application, resultantly both the cases were amalgamated.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who states that it was an ordinary case of section 365, P.P.C. Which was required to be tried by the Court of Session as terrorism is to be seen and considered from the averments of the F.I.R. As such matter may be transferred to the Court of Session, as act is not an act of terrorism and request that order passed by the trial Court may be set aside. On the other hand Mr. Masood A. Noorani learned Additional Advocate-General supported the order dated 29-1-2008 passed by the learned A.T.C. No,1, Karachi, on the ground that act, in the manner has been committed, created sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the general public, as such act on the part of applicant falls within the meaning of section 6 of A.T.A.-1997.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through material available on record, particularly contents of the F.I.R. In this case a question had come up whether Revision application against order passed by A.T.C. Is maintainable and A,T.C. Had jurisdiction to try the present matter. So far maintainability of Revision Application is concerned, Honourable appex Court while deciding a Criminal Appeals Nos. 257 of 2000 and others (Syed Hussain Abbass v. The State) had observed that High Courts being appellate forum against the orders of the Anti- Terrorism'Court in a suitable and appropriate cases can exercise powers, as required under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. Whereas, view taken by this Court in unreported decisions viz. Criminal Revision Application No,D-44/04 (Asghar v. The State) and 74/04 (Tariq Ali v. The State)
Bench at Sukkur, in view of the law laid down in cases reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 1322 (Taha v. The State) and 2000 PCr.LJ 1195 (Muhammad Sabir Roshan v. The State) respectively, allowed withdrawal of above Revisions without prejudice the rights of the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, vide order dated 5-5-2004 and 14-9-2004 respectively.
5. As such we have to consider, whether present matter is a fit case and a case of suitable and appropriate nature so such powers may be exercised. However, while considering the facts of the present matter, we are of the view that there are no such suitable and appropriate circumstances that such powers be exercised as required under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. And in our view present revision application is not maintainable in accordance to law, though same can be converted into Constitutional Petition, having no other remedy and that there is no limitation so far except lathes. So far next issue of "terrorism" is concerned, the settled principles in this respect are that terrorism be determined from the criminal act 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 and other ordinary crimes are not to be dealt under the ATA. A physical harm to the victim is not the sole criteria to determine the question of terrorism, as motive should be the key word or the objective of the act. However, if an offence is committed without background of any enmity, manner and method of the commission of offence is such that the public at large individually and collectively feel apprehension that any one of them can at any time be subjected to similar act of brutality, disturbing the physical and mental peace and tranquility of the people, giving impression that the writ of the government has been rendered ineffective, with the result that nobody is safe in pursuing ordinary pursuits of life, then such act certainly amounts to an act of Terrorism, as defined in section 6 of the A.T.A.-1997. Reliance can be placed upon a number of reported and unreported decisions in this regard. For ready reference, reliance is made to a case of PLD 2003 SC 224 (State v.
Muhammad Shafiq), PLD 2000 Kar. 89 (Jahangir Akhtar Awan and 2 others v. The State), 2002 SCM R 908 (Mst. Raheela Nasreen v. The State) respectively.
6. Under such circumstances, from averments it is to be seen and determined the nature of the offence, that how same has been committed, so also particular place of incident and time respectively, and further that by that act a sense of fear and insecurity in the society has been created in the minds of the people at large or not, as other factors at the first instance are not to be considered, each and every case cannot fall within the meaning of section 6 of the A.T.A.-1997. So far present matter is concerned admittedly there is only word of complainant that he was going to be kidnapped for ransom and he has not stated anywhere that accused had demanded any amount as ransom, as a condition for his release from him nor any amount is said to have been paid to the culprits, as observed by the trial Court. The contents of the F.I.R. Are that while going on motorcycle at 2315 hours, three persons came behind the complainant, and directed him to stop his motorcycle and showed T.T. Pistols to the complainant and due to fear he stopped his motorcycle and he was asked to give them all things available in possession of the complainant.
On fear of culprits, complainant gave them purse containing cash of Rs,7500, three prize bonds worth Rs,4000 each and one mobile of Sonny Ericson Company and one of the culprit gave a butt blow on his head and then compelled him to go with them on motorcycle and on their way near Adil Kanta a police van emerged and exchanged of fires and taking advantage of such situation complainant started running and crying in the words that three bandits were kidnapping him for ransom and police party succeeded in holding one of the culprit who disclosed his name as Hazoor Bux and police secured an unlicensed pistol of .30 bore with magazine containing two live bullets and one empty magazine from his pocket. He disclosed the names of his companions who escaped, as Shafiq and Nadir Taggar. In the F.I.R. It has also been alleged that four empty shells were also found from place of incident.
7. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that incident taken place at odd hours of the night and place of incident is near Pipri graveyard and Adil Kanta Nasirabad Road and nature of the offence is not that complainant was going to be kidnapped for the particular purpose of ransom of any demand was made so far and there is word against word as stated above of the complainant to the extent that mobile and etc. Were robbed from him. We have gone through the order, which has been impugned, prima facie are not satisfied, from the observations made by the trial Court that present matter is covered by section 6 punishable under section 7-B of ATA-1997 and is triable by the A.T.C.
Prima facie the case is of abduction and covered by section 365, P.P.C. And not fall within the meaning of section 6 of the ATA-1997. We have discussed at length concept and principles of terrorism, whereas, trial Court has not considered that under such a situation if matter of such a nature will be treated the case of ATA, then there remains nothing for ordinary Courts. Even otherwise, every case is to be decided on its own merits in view of the contents of the F.I.R. Looking to the aforesaid facts, in the interest of justice, present Revision Application is converted into Constitutional Petition and set aside, the order passed on 29-1-2008 by the ATC, with directions that above matter be 'transferred to the concerned ordinary/Sessions Court for trial in accordance with law and be decided on its own merits. With above observations, the Petition is allowed.