' SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.---This Revision Application is directed against the order dated 29- 9-2006 passed by learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-III, Sukkur and Larkana Division at Sukkur in Special Court , No,26/2006, arising out of F.I.R. No,46/2006, Offence under sections 302, 504, 337/H2 read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1997) registered at Police Station Mehrabpur, District Nausheroferoze, whereby application of the applicant under section 23 of the Act, for the transfer of the case from A.T.C. Court to the Court having jurisdiction, was dismissed.
' Facts of the case are that the F.I.R. Lodged on 12-5-2006 by one Rustam Ali, wherein it is, inter alia alleged that on the same day at about 6-00 p.m. Muhammad Sulleman, the brother of the complainant was killed with pistol shots by accused in his otaq. The reason for the incident is said to be that the brother of complainant as well as brother of Muhammad Sulleman namely Muhammad Hassan who was the Deputy Jail Superintendpnt, District Jail Khairpur did not facilitate to the friends of accused as desired by them, therefore, Khadim "and Akhtar along with two unidentified persons amongst whom Khadim, Akhter and one unknown person armed with pistols and rest one was armed with kalashankov came on 125 motorcycle. Two persons named above and one unidentified person gave pistol shots and Sulleman who was sitting with the complainant, his Puphat (cousin) Nisar Ahmed and maternal uncle Mazhar Sulleman, the deceased died at the spot.
' The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicants were arrested and the challan has been submitted before the A.T.C. Court. It is next urged that the case does not fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Act of 1997, as neither any Government servant was present at the spot nor any action has been taken against any public servant, rather it was the private dispute and a private person is said to have been killed by the applicants, therefore, proceeding before the learned Trial Court is coram non judice and the case has to be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the following judgments:--
1. PLD 2007 SC 571 (Fazul Dad v. Ghulam Muhammad Malik and others).
2. 2007 SCM R 142 (Mohabbat Ali & others v. The State).
3. PLD 2001 SC 521 (Choudhry Bashir Ahmed v. Naveed Iqbal and 7 others).
' The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this Revision Application and has argued that after directions of Honourable Supreme Court, the Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation and submitted Supplementary Challan, wherein brother of the deceased namely Muhammad Hassan, the Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail Karachi has been cited as prosecution witness. He further argued that initially the case was proceeded before the A.T.C.
Sukkur-II, but due to threats of the accused party, the complainant was bent upon to file the Criminal Transfer Application bearing No,33/2008, as a result, the case has been transferred to the A.T.C.-II, Karachi. He placed the order, reported in 2009 YLR 46. It is next urged that the offence falls under section 6 of the Act 1997, hence exclusively triable by the A.T.C. Court. In support of his arguments he relied upon the case of Amir Khan and another v. The State (Criminal Revision Application No,88 of 2004 (DB) Karachi). He further submitted that the impugned order was passed on 29-9-2006 and this Criminal Revision Application has been filed on 29-1-2009, after the delay of 28 months, and the case has been concluded and is fixed for judgment, but due to the order of this Court, the judgment has been stayed.
' The learned counsel for the applicants in rebuttal has submitted that initially when this Revision Application was filed, then the brother of the complainant namely Muhammad Hassan, the Assistant Superintendent posted at Karachi Central Jail was not cited as witness, but on his objection with mala fides, the supplementary challan has been submitted, in which he has been cited as witness.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the complainant, the Additional Prosecutor-General and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order was passed on 29-9-2006, but this .Revision Application has been filed on 29-1-2009 though there is no limitation in fling Revision Application, but in the cases under the A.T.A. The laches cannot be over looked. However the point of jurisdiction can be agitated at any time. The case has been completed and is fixed for judgment; therefore, we are not inclined to go through the entire evidence at this stage. However, IA prima facie, the case is made out under the A.T.A. As per section 6 of the Act, XXXIX of 2001. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred the judgments, which are based on personal enmity or prior to the Act of the 2001, therefore, are not applicable in the instant case. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, hence need no interference. This criminal revision has no merits, hence dismissed in limine with listed application.