Khizar Hayat son of Muhammad Hayat, and Muhammad Mubashir Hassan son of Muzaffar Khan through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assail the order dated 15.11.2008, passed by the learned Judge Special Court Anti-Terrorism, Rawalpindi, whereby the application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 of the petitioners seeking transfer of the case FIR No, 103 dated 12,5.2008, registered at Police Station Pind Dadan Khan for offences under Sections 302/324/148/149/ 427/120-B P.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, from the said Anti-Terrorism Court to the Court of Session at Jhelum has been rejected by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court.
2. The petition was dismissed by the above said Anti-Terrorism Court through the impugned order dated 15.11.2008 by observing that. The occurrence of this case took place at 3:30 p.m. at Adda Daryala Jalab and the accused party came on truck, obviously armed with kalashnikoves etc. and resorted to firing at the complainant party and caused the death of two persons. In the said process, six persons were also injured who had no enmity with the parties of this case. The apparent cumulative effect of the said indiscriminate firing obviously caused sense of fear and insecurity in the residents of the said locality and, therefore, Sections 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act were found attracted even initially at the time of registration of the FIR."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the accused-petitioners along with others while armed with kalashnikovs etc., forming unlawful assembly committed the murders of Shahid Mehmood and Munawar Hussain and injured some other persons at Adda Daryala Jalab.
4. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per facts mentioned in the FIR, the occurrence of this case was result of previous enmity, that the cases had already been registered against the petitioners and in this respect reference has been made to four other FIRs registered in between the parties. Further contends that there was no evidence on the file to the effect that because of the occurrence any terror or panic was created in the area. Further contends that the occurrence was due to the personal vendetta therefore the learned Judge Anti- Terrorism Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and the case should be transferred to the Court of Session. Contends that-the application of the accused-petitioners under Section 23 ATA seeking transfer of the case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to the Sessions Court has illegally been dismissed. Places reliance on the cases reported as Mehram Ali and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 1445), Ch. Bashir Ahmad vs. Naveed Iqbal and 7 others (PLD 2001 SC 521), Muhammad Ali and others vs. The State and others (PLD 2004 Lahore 554), Shaikh Muhammad Amjad vs. The State (2002 P.Cr.L.J. 1317) and Mazhar vs. The State (PLD 2003 Lahore 267).
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the case of Mirza Shaukat Baig and others vs. Shahid Jamil and others (PLD 2005 SC 530), the Honourable Supreme Court has interpreted Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), according to which 'terrorism' means use or threat of 'action' where the `action' falls within the meaning of Section 6(2) of the Act and creates a serious risk to safety of the public or a Section of public or is designed to frighten the general public and thereby prevents them from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business, and disrupts civil life. Such act shall amount to terrorism as enumerated in Section 6 of the Act. The Court cannot pick and choose one or two sentences or a few words for academic purpose and their scholarly interpretation by ignoring the Objects and Reasons for the promulgation of the Act and its Preamble.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Mehram Ali and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 1445). We must not ignore the dictum laid down in the said case of Mehram Ali and others, which reads as under:-- "We may point out that this Court is not oblivious of the factum that the law and order situation has been considerably deteriorated and new types of terrorism have emerged due to tremendous progress made in the field of technology. This Court in more than one cases has held that the approach of the Court while considering criminal matters should be dynamic and it should take into consideration the surrounding situation obtaining in the country.,.."
7. In the case of Ch. Bashir Ahmad us. Naveed Iqbal and 7 others (PLD 2001 SC 521) while interpreting the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), the honorable Supreme Court had held as under:- "A person would commit a terrorist act if in order to, or if the effect of his actions will be to strike terror or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people...."
8. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that from the contents of the FIR it is manifestly clear that the occurrence of this case took place at 3:30 p.m. at Adda Daryala Jalab and allegedly the accused party came in a truck, all the persons armed with kalashnikovs etc., and resorted to firing, as a result of which two persons of the complainant party lost their lives and six persons, who had no enmity with either party, got injured. The act of the accused was to strike terror or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people or a section of people, because, as stated above, the venue of the occurrence was the public place, i,e, Adda Daryala Jalib. The weapons which were used in the commission of the offence was automatic.
9. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that the alleged offence mentioned in the above said FIR falls within the jurisdictional domain of the Special Court constituted under the Anti- Terrorism Act. The jurisdiction has rightly been exercised by the trial Court in rejecting the application of the petitioners under Section 23 of the ATA which order needs no interference by this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. This being so, this petition falls and the same is dismissed in limine.