Syed Akhlaq Ahmed, J.--Through this writ, Abdul Raheem petitioner/complainant has challenged the order dated 25.02.2008 passed by Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No. II Multan/Respondent No. 1 whereby he accepted the transfer application moved by the respondents/accused u/S. 23 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, deleted the charge u/S. 7(b) of ATA and sent the file back to the Illaqa Magistrate PS: Dehli Gate Multan for its trial in the Court of ordinary jurisdiction.
2. At the instance of Malik Abdur Rahim/petitioner/complainant case FIR No. 147/07 dated 03.08.2007 under Section 324/452/337-LW/F(v)/L(ii)/448/148/149 PPC and under Section 7ATA was registered as PS: Dehli Gate Multan alleging therein that he purchased 5-Kanals of land vide Sale- deed No. 4391 dated 15.05.2001 where a boundary wall was constructed and Abdul Rauf S/o Naik Muhammad was residing there along with his family. On 03.08.2007, at about 11/2 a.m. he along with Maqsood Yameen S/o Naik Muhammad, caste Dogar, r/o Ahmadabad, his brother Abdul Rehman, Muhammad Mujahid S/o Shaukat Ali, caste Butt, r/o Ahmadabad, Muhammad Iqbal alias Aslam S/o Noor Muhammad, caste Dogar, r/o Manzoorabad Multan and Abdul Rauf S/o Naik Muhammad were present in their plot situated in Chah Khameesaywala, Mohallah Ahmadabad Multan when a white colour Corolla Car No. 5/MLF, a Suzuki Carry Bearing No. 873/MNN and white Corolla Car No. 8316/RLC, came there. Some persons also reached there on foot whose names are:--
(1) Muhammad Sharif S/o Gulab Din, caste Dogar, armed with Sota, (2) Kamran S/o Muhammad Umar, caste Dogar, r/o BCG Chowk Multan armed with 222 bore rifle, (3) Muhammad Idress S/o Gulab Din, caste Dogar, r/o Sultanabad armed with Sota, (4) Manzoor Hussain S/o Gulab Din, caste Dogar, r/o Rasoolpur armed with .32 bore, (5) Qurban S/o Muhammad Akram armed with .12 bore r/o Ahmadabad, (6) Muhammad Anwar S/o Muhammad Hanif, caste Dogar r/o Kotheywala armed with Sota, (7) Abdul Hakeem alias Gogi S/o Muhammad Jaaber alias Abdul Rashid, caste Dogar, r/o People Colony armed with pistol .30 bore, (8) Muhammad Umar S/o Naik Muhammad, caste Dogar, r/o BCG Chowk armed with .222 bore rifle, (9) Muhammad Saleem S/o Muhammad Jameel, caste Pathan, r/o Gulzeb Colony armed with Sota, (10) Ashiq Ali S/o Rukan Din, caste Dogar, r/o Basti Maswa n armed with Sota, (11) Muhammad Sharif S/o Naik Muhammad, caste Dogar, r/o Kotheywala armed with Sota, (12) Muhammad Rizwan S/o Muhammad Umar, caste Dogar, r/o BCG armed with pistol .30 bore, (13) Muhammad Farooq S/o Mardan Ali, caste Dogar, r/o Basti Maswan armed with Sota, (14) Farhan S/o Muhammad Saleem, caste Pathan, r/o Mumtazabad armed with Sota, (15) Muhammad Sardar S/o Javed Akhtar, caste Dogar, r/o Ahmadabad armed with Sota, (16)
Abdul Samad S/o Muhammad Hussain, caste Dogar, r/o Ahmadabad armed with Sota, (17)
Muhammad Umar S/o Ahmad Yar, caste Dogar, r/o Chongi No. 14 armed with Sota, (18)
Muhammad Amin S/o Muhammad Ilyas, caste Rajpute, r/o Tataypur armed with Sota, (19) Faheem Rustam Aslam S/o Muhammad Aslam, caste Chatha, r/o Ahmadabad armed with Hunter, (20)
Muhammad Imran S/o Muhammad Umar, caste Dogar, r/o BCG Chowk armed with Kalashnikov,
(21) Abdul Hameed S/o Muhammad Jabir alias Abdul Rasheed, caste Dogar, r/o Peoples Colony Multan armed with .222 bore, (22) Muhammad Irfan S/o Muhammad Aslam, caste Dogar, r/o Ahmadabad armed with .12 bore, (23) Muhammad Bilal S/o Muhammad Hussian, caste Dogar, r/o Ahmadabad armed with pistol .30 bore, (24) Furqan S/o Muhammad Akram, caste Dogar, r/o Ahmadabad armed With pistol .30 bore, (25) Bashir alias Mithoo S/o Gulab Din, caste Dogar, r/o Sultanabad armed with pistol .30 bore, (26) Sardar S/o Amir Hamza, caste Dogar, r/o Basti Maswan armed with .222 bore came there and raised lalkara that they will not be left alive and will be taught a lesson for purchasing the land. Muhammad Imran made a straight fire with Klashnikov which hit Maqsood Yamin S/o Naik Muhammad on his left leg. Kamran S/o Muhammad Umar made a fire with .222 bore which landed on both the legs of the complainant Muhammad Umar S/o Naik Muhammad made straight fire with .222 bore which landed on the right leg of Abdul Rehman, brother of the complainant. Muhammad Rizwan S/o Muhammad Umar made a fire with .30 bore pistol which landed upon the left leg of Muhammad Iqbal. Muhammad Imran gave a blow with butt of .222 bore on the forehead of abdul Rauf as a result of which he was injured. He again gave blow with the butt of rifle which landed on. his right shoulder. Muhammad Sharif S/o Naik Muhammad, Muhammad Sharif S/o Gulab Din and Idress S/o Gulab Din gave Sota blows on Muhammad Mujahid which hit on his left thigh, left shoulder and left writs. On hue and cry and on hearing the noise of firing Muhammad Yousaf S/o Naik Muhammad, Rana Muhammad Abid S/o Hafiz Noor Muhammad and other Mohalladars attracted at the spot. It is alleged that the above mentioned accused persons belong to Qabza Group. Earlier he had also got registered against them case FIR No. 80/07 dated 21.04.2007 u/S..511/442/148/337- H(ii)/149 PPC at PS: Dehli Gate Multan. The firing of the accused persons created terror in the area. They also left three vehicles .at the spot and succeeded in running away with their 'arms while making aerial firing. The complainant and others removed the injured to the Nishtar Hospital Multan.
3. On receipt of challan, Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No. II Multan/Respondent No. 1 framed the charge against the respondent/ accused for the offences mentioned above. Statements of PW-1 Abdul Raheem petitioner/complainant and PW-2 Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhary were recorded whereafter respondents/accused moved an application u/S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 before Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No. II Multan/Respondent No. 1 who after deleting the offence u/S. 7 ATA sent the case back to the learned Illaqa Magistrate for its trial in the Court of ordinary jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that according to the FIR and the statements of the PWs, 26 persons armed with different lethal weapons wile boarding in three vehicles came at the place of occurrence. They launched attack upon the complainant party. Four persons including complainant received fire-arm injuries while two persons received blunt weapon injuries from the side of respondent/ accused. Evidence produced by the prosecution namely PW-1 Abdul Rahim fully corroborates the medical evidence of PW-2 Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhary and other available material on the record. During the occurrence, Abdul Rahim received two injuries from Kamran accused, Muhammad Iqbal received two fire-arm injuries and Maqsood and Abdul Rehman received one fire-arm injury each. Respondents/ accused initially fired 6/7 aerial shots and also made indiscriminate firing at the place of occurrence. 47 fire-arms empties were recovered from the place of occurrence. After the occurrence respondents/accused ran towards the street while making indiscriminate firing and due to this act of the respondents/accused sense of fear and panic spread all over the area. During cross-examination, no suggestion was made by the defence about the said facts. In this way it is admitted by the defence that the occurrence created sense of fear and panic. Defence also admitted the presence of the respondents/accused, recovery of vehicles and firing at the place of occurrence which is situated in a thickly populated area.
It is the consistent view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that if the act/crime committed by the accused creates sense of fear in the society or section of public, then the offence falls within the jurisdiction of ATA' Court. Section 7 ATA' was added by the police during investigation of this case.
26 respondents/accused of this case while armed with lethal weapons made unlawful assembly, fired 50 shots in the thickly populated area and also in the street and injured six persons. In this way material available on record, clearly proves that Section 7 ATA is made out. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 25.02.2008 passed by Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No. II Multan/Respondent No. 1 be set-aside and the case be ordered to be heard and decided by Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No. II Multan.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 20 contends that Section 7 ATA is not attracted in the present case. A civil suit was-filed by the respondents/accused regarding cancellation of sale-deed. This fact caused annoyance to the complainant party who became inimical towards the respondents/accused. Since there is a dispute regarding land between both the parties, therefore, present case has no nexus with the Anti-Terrorism or with secretarial hatred etc. This being so, Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No. II Multan rightly deleted Section 7-b of ATA on the application of the respondents/accused and sent the case back to the learned Area Magistrate for its trial in the Court of ordinary jurisdiction.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
7. Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorisms Act, 1997 provides the definition of "terrorism". In order to appreciate the legal position, Section 6. of the Act is reproduced as under:-- "6. Terrorism.--(1) In this Act, "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where--
(a) the action falls within the meaning of sub-section (2), and
(b) the use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or a' section of the public or community or sect or create a sense of fear and insecurity in society; or
(c) the use of threat is made for the purpose of advancing a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause, or intimidating and terrorizing the public, social sectors, business community and preparing or attacking the civilians, Government officials, installations, security forces or law enforcement agencies.
2. An "Action" shall fall within the meaning of sub-section (1), if it--
(a) involves the doing or anything that causes death;
(b) involves grievous violence against a person or grievous bodily injury or harm to a person;
(c) involves grievous damage to property, including Government premises, official installations, schools, hospitals, offices, or any other public property; (d)involves the doing of anything that is likely to cause death or endangers a person's life; (e)involves kidnapping for ransom, hostage-taking or hijacking;---"
8. A bare reading of the above quoted provisions of law makes it crystal clear that Section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is unambiguous, plain and simple which hardly requires any scholarly interpretation and is capable enough to meet all kinds of terrorism. It is an exhaustive section and does not revolve around the word "designed to" as used in Section 6(1)(b) of the Act or mens rea but the key word is "action" on the basis whereof it can be adjudged as to whether the alleged offence falls within the scope of Section 6 of the Act or otherwise. The significance and the import of word "action" cannot be minimized and requires interpretation in a broader perspective.
9. No provision of law can be interpreted on the basis of "pick and choose" of a few words and in case of any confusion, the relevant provisions of law should be read in toto along with the preamble of the statute coupled with the objects and reasons thereof to remove the confusion, if any.
It must not be lost sight of that the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) and (b) of the Act are not independent and the word "action" as used cannot be restricted within a limited sphere which has been further clarified in Section 6(2) of the Act to remove all the doubts and ambiguities, if any, clause (i) of Section 6(2) of the Act is very significant which cannot be kept aside being an integral part of Section 6 of the Act which shall be read in toto to see what in fact the terrorism is?
10.Terrorism, thus, means the use or threat of "action" where the "action" falls within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act and creates a serious risk to safety of the public or a section of the public, or is designed to frighten the general public and thereby prevent them from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business, and disrupt civil life. Such action shall amount to terrorism as enumerated in Section 6 of the Act. (Mirza Shaukat Baig and others vs. Shahid Jamil and others, PLD 2005 Supreme Court 530 relied upon).
11.As in this case, 26 persons armed with different lethal weapons while riding on three vehicles came at the place of occurrence which is situated in a thickly populated area in the odd hours of night and launched attack on the complainant party in which four persons including the complainant received fire-arm injuries while two persons received blunt weapons injuries from the hands of the respondents/accused. According to record, about 47 fire-arms empties were recovered from the place of occurrence. After the occurrence respondents/accused ran towards the street while making indiscriminate firing. Due to this act and conduct of the respondents/ accused sense of fear and panic must have spread all over the area.
Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as 'Muhammad Mushtaq vs. Muhammad Ashiq and others' PLD 2002 SC 841 held that physical harm to the victim is not the sole criteria to determine the question of terrorism. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "7. It would thus appear that ordinary crimes are not to be dealt with under the Act. A physical harm to the victim is not the sole criterion to determine the question of terrorism. What is to be seen is the psychological effect produced by the violent action or with the potential of producing such an effect on the society as a whole or a section thereof. There may be a death or injury caused in the process. Thus where a criminal act is 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, the same may be treated to be a terrorist act. There may' be just a few killings, random or targeted, resorted to with single mindedness of purpose. But nevertheless the impact of the same may be to terrorize thousands of people by creating a panic or fear in their minds.'
Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as `Sh.
Muhammad Amjad vs. The State' PLD 2003 SC 704, `Mst. Najam-un-Nisa vs. Judge, Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997' 2003 SCM R 1323, 'Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti vs. Muhammad Saleern and others' 2003 SCM R 1934 and `Zahid Imran and others vs. The State and others' PLD 2006 SC 109.
In all the above mentioned judgments by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, for determining the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, much emphasis has been laid on the point that if action of the accused had got the tendency to create a sense of insecurity in the minds of the people or section of the society, the case would fall within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. It has also been held that it is not necessary that the said act must have created the panic rather the Courts are obliged to see only as to whether the crime had or had not the effect of striking terror or creating fear and insecurity in the people or any section of the people.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the acts of Respondents No. 2 to 20 created sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of public, and thus, same falls within the ambit of Sections 6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. As such the learned trial Court was not justified in accepting the application of the respondents/accused and sending the case for trial to the ordinary Court after. deleting Section 7(b) ATA from the charge. It is further observed that the findings of this Court would not prejudice the case of either party. We, therefore, accept this writ, set-aside the impugned order dated 25.02.2008 passed by Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No II Multan with the result that this case will be heard and tried by Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No II Multan.