Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Rana Shahbaz Riaz petitioner has challenged the validity of order, dated 12-3-2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad whereby an application moved by Saad Ullah respondent No,13 under section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for sending the challan to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction was accepted and the challan of this case was sent to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad for its entrustment to the Court of regular jurisdiction.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the statement of Rana Shahbaz Riaz petitioner a case F.I.R.
No,610, dated 20-6-2007 was registered at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad under sections 302/109/324/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 against respondents Nos.3 to 13 for an occurrence which took place on 20-6-2007 at about 5-30 p.m.
Alleging therein that the petitioner is Zamindar by profession. On the day of occurrence at about 5- 30 p.m. He along with Atif Javed, Liaqat Ali and Amir was coming to his home on a Car bearing Registration No,FDA-862 from Police Station Khurrianwala after joining investigation of some other case. Atif Javed Butt was driving the car. The petitioner was sitting on the front seat of the car while Liaqat and Amir were sitting on the rear seat of the car. When they reached near Ghausia Masjid Jhumra Road, two cars out of which one was white colour and the other was black, were parked alongside the road and the accused persons namely Zulfiqar Bhutto, Liaqat, Iqbal, Riasat, Iftikhar, Riaz, Naveed and three unknown persons (who could be identified on coming before the complainant) abruptly came out on the road from the cars while armed with kalashnikovs and started reckless firing upon the petitioner and others. Zulfiqar alias Bhuttoo made fires with Kalashnikov which after breaking the front screen of the car, hit on the right side of head, on the left side of face and below the chin of Atif Butt, as a result of which, the car became out of control and hit the electric pole. Riasat, Liaqat Iqbal and Iftikhar made fires with their kalashnikovs which landed on chest towards right shoulder and waist of Liaqat. The petitioner after alighting from the front seat of the car, ran to take some shelter, accused Riaz started firing with Kalashnikov from the backside, which hit Naveed on his right arm, left ribs and the fires had also hit on the right knee and left foot of the petitioner. All the accused made firing in the Bazaar in suchlike manner that terrorism spread there. The local police while receiving the information regarding the occurrence came at the spot and the accused persons on seeing the police party ran away while making firing in the air. Atif butt and Liaqat succumbed to the injuries at the spot whereas companion of the accused namely Naveed had also succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Besides the complainant- petitioner the occurrence had been witnessed by Amir and Rashid who was busy at that time in purchasing articles from the nearby shop.
3. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged to be that in 1997, brother of Zulfiqar Bhutto and Liaqat etc. Had been murdered and case was registered against Muhammad Nawaz brother of the petitioner. Due to this grudge, Zulfiqar Bhutto and his brothers namely Liaqat, Iqbal, Riasat and Iftikhar along with other accused persons in consultation with each other and on the abetment of Nawaz, Qadeer, Nazir and master Tufail had caused murderous attack upon the petitioner and his companions and in the occurrence, Atif Javed and Liaqat Ali lost their lives while the petitioner became injured and companion of the accused namely Naveed had also died. Leaving the dead bodies of the deceased at Civil Hospital, Khurrianwala under the guard of Afzal, the petitioner- complainant proceeded to report the matter to the police.
4. After usual investigation, challan against the accused was submitted in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad. During the trial, Saad Ullah respondent No,13 moved an application under section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for sending back the challan to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction and vide order, dated 12-3-2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, said application was accepted and challan of the case was sent to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad for its entrustment to the Court of regular jurisdiction. Hence, this writ petition.
4-A. In support of this petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation levelled against respondents Nos.3 to 13 in the F.I.R. Involved terrorism and, therefore, the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad was not justified in directing trial of the case against the respondents to be held before a regular Court, which order is liable to be set aside by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General have opposed this petition on the grounds that an act of private revenge based upon a personal vendetta is not to be treated as an act of terrorism which is a species apart. In the present case the F.I.R. Itself mentions that the offences in questions had been committed by the culprits in the background of personal enmity between the parties and to achieve private revenge.
Thus, a Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 clearly lack jurisdiction to try the respondents.
6. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material brought on record with their assistance. We are not dilating upon the merits of the case in view of the nature of the order which we are going to pass as this exercise may cause prejudice to either side. We have confined ourselves to a limited question, whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case sections 6 and 7 of the Act read with the Schedule are attracted or not. To bring an offence mentioned in the Schedule within the purview of the Act, it is essential that the said offence must have nexus with the object of the Act and the offences covered by sections 6 and 7 thereof. Section 6(b) of the Act which defines a "terrorist act" as under: -- `6. "Terrorist" Act.--- A person is said to commit a terrorist act if he:
(a) 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, does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive or inflammable substances, or such fire-arms or other lethal weapons as may be notified, or poisons or noxious gases or chemicals, in such a manner as to cause, or be likely to cause. The death of, or injury to, any person or persons, or damage to, or destruction of, property on a large scale, or a widespread disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, or threatens with the use of force public servants in order to prevent them from discharging their lawful duties; or
(b) commits a scheduled offence, the effect of which will be, or be likely to be, to strike terror, or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people or to adversely affect harmony among different sections of the people; or
(c) commits an act of gang rape, child molestation, or robbery coupled with rape as specified in the Schedule to this Act; or (0 commits an act of civil commotion as specified in section 7-A."
A reading of the above provision of the Act demonstrates that it is not necessary that the commission of murder must have created panic and terror among the people. The Courts have only to see whether the terrorist act was such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear of insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of the society. 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. Reference in this regard is made to the case of Mst. Raheela Nasreen v. The State and another 2002 SCM R 908 wherein the husband was killed by a Batman in connivance with his wife inside the house. However, the case was tried by the Special Court constituted under the Act as this act of the Batman, being a trusted person employed by an army officer though committed inside the house, was likely to strike terror leading to the feelings of insecurity among the army officers in spite of the fact that they had not seen the incident.
7. 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 ..." In the case in hand, occurrence had taken place on the main road and in the main Bazar of Khurrianwala in front of Markazi Jamia Masjid in which murders of three innocent persons had been committed allegedly by the respondents by firing with kalashnikovs and the complainant had also been injured and it would had certainly caused shock, fear and insecurity among the C people of the vicinity. If no crime-empty was recovered from the place of occurrence at the time of spot inspection by the police it cannot be said that the firing was not made and the occurrence had not taken place as allegedly Naveed deceased received six entry wounds, Atif Javed deceased received seven bullet injuries, while Liaqat Ali deceased had received three bullet injuries and the petitioner had also sustained two fire-arm injuries on his person. In this view of the matter, we accept this petition, set aside the order dated 12-3-2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad and direct him to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.