' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---This judgment will dispose of three connected Constitutional Petitions bearing Writ Petition No. 143 of 2007 (Shahbaz Noor v. The State and 10 others), Writ Petition No.371 of 2007 (Muhammad Nadeem v. The State and another) and Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 (Hameed Masih v. Muhammad Afzal and three others), as all these matters arise out of the same F.I.R. Bearing No.524, dated 20-12-2006, registered with Police Station Barki, District Lahore for offences under sections 324, 506, 148, 149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions were that Muhammad Afzal Khan son of Fowaj Ali, Assistant Security Officer, Security Branch, DHA, Lahore (complainant) got the aforesaid F.I.R.
Registered with the regard to an occurrence allegedly having taken place within the area of DHA Phase VI, on 20-12-2006, narrating therein that some technical personnel of a Malaysian Company along with some Pakistanis were busy working on a Golf Course with heavy machinery; about 11-00 a.m., seven employees of the Malaysian Company and ten Pakistanis were busy doing some work near Bokhari House; all of a sudden, four vehicles arrived there from the side of Dera Chahal; Shahbaz Noor (petitioner in Writ Petition No 143 of 2007), Iftikhar Ahmad, Zulfiqar Ali, armed with .222-bore rifles, Hameed Masih (petitioner in Writ Petition No 654 of 2007) armed with .44-bore, Muhammad Nadeem (petitioner in Writ Petition No 371 of 2007) armed with .223 bore, Abdul Razzaq, armed with Pump Action, Mubarik Ali, armed with pistol .30-bore, Mahmood, armed with Pump Action 12-bore along with eight/nine unknown persons, who were occupying the said vehicles, alighted therefrom; Shahbaz Noor and Iftikhar exhorted Lalkara to the effect that the employees of the DHA would be killed and in order to achieve their goal, all the accused persons started indiscriminate firing straight at them; the workers of the Malaysian and Pakistani Companies started running due to fear, however, some of them had been manhandled by the accused persons and the work was stopped, by making indiscriminate firing, the accused persons had created terror in the area; thereafter the accused fled from the scene riding on their vehicles.
Resultantly, the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. Shahbaz Noor, Muhammad Nadeem and Hameed Masih, the petitioners in aforesaid three constitutional petitions, respectively, have sought quashing of the said F.I.R. Or in the alternate deletion of section 324, P.P.C. And section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 on A the ground that from the plain reading of the F.I.R. No case under the said provisions is made out and the said sections have been added only with a view to magnifying the offence and making the same non-bailable.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Assistant Advocate- General and going through the record, it has been observed that of prosecution's own showing the Golf Course was being constructed at a far off place away from residential area and the main road. Apart from that if murderous assault had been launched in the B manner as alleged in the F.I.R., then some damage ought to have been caused. In the F.I.R., it was mentioned that the petitioners and their co-accused, who were carrying dangerous fire-arms, had resorted to firing, but strangely enough no physical harm whatsoever has been caused by them. In the case of Mohabbat Ali and another v. The State and another (2007 SCM R 142), the Hon'ble Supreme'Court of Pakistan while dealing with almost a similar situation had observed that in order to determine as to whether the offence would fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over allegations made in the F.I.R., record of the case and the surrounding circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court went on to add that it was also to be seen as to whether the said act has treated a sense of fear and insecurity in the public or in any section of public or community or in any sect.
5. Applying the yardstick as prescribed by the 'Hon'ble apex Court in the case cited hereinabove, the instant case does not attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. There is no statement of any of the Malaysian or Pakistani workers, who had allegedly been scared away to support the claim-of the prosecution. Likewise, applicability of section 324, P.P.C. Also does not appear to be made out for the simple reason that no harm was done although as already stated elsewhere the petitioners and their co-accused were armed with formidable weaponry.
6. For what has been discussed above, we hold that neither section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 nor section 324, P.P.C. Is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The prosecution, however, may, if so advised, send a report to the Magistrate concerned under section 173, Cr.P.C.
Under the remaining offences. These petitions stand allowed in the above terms and the order, dated 11-12007 'Passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.1II, Lahore, whereby application, under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 moved by Muhammad Nadeem (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 371 of 2007) was dismissed, is hereby set aside. There will be no order as to costs.