IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.----Appellant Dildar has filed this Special A.T. Jail Appeal through Superintendent, Central Prison I, Sukkur. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Court of Anti Terrorism Sukkur in Special Case No,15 of 2003 and Special Case No,30 of 2003 as under
(a) Offence under section 365, P.P.C. R/W section 149, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for seven yeas each and fine of Rs,50,000 each and in default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo R.I. for one year more.
(b) Offence under section 395 R/W section 149, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for 10 years each and fine of Rs,50,000 each and in default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo. R.I. for one year more.
(c) Since fatal injuries have not been attributed to any of accused as it has also not come on record from whose fire the death of victim took place. I, there fore while considering the above fact as mitigating circumstances award sentence of imprisonment for life under section 396, P.P.C. R/W section 149, P.P.C. and also impose fine of Rs,100,000 each to be paid to legal heirs of deceased Allah Bux as sort of compensation under section 544, Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo R.I. for one year more.
(d) Offence under section 397, P.P.C. R/W section 149, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for seven years.
(c) Offence under section 427, P.P.C. R/W section 149, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs,10,000 each and in default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo R.I. for six months more.
2. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in his favour.
3. We have perused the impugned judgment and charge framed by the learned' trial Court. The charge reads as under:-- "That you on or about 28-2-2003 at 22-15 hours near Masoo Wah on link road leading from Rountee to Ubauro, duly armed with Kalashnikovs in prosecution of your common object, made attempt to kidnap Allah Bux and Muhammad Yousif with intent to cause them to be secretly and wrongfully confined, thereby committed offence punishable under section 365, P.P.C. R/W sections 511 and 149, P.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court.
I next charge you accused that on aforesaid date, time and place in the course of dacoity, robbed Rs,1000 from Allah Bux and Seiko-5 wrist watch from Muhammad Yousif and thereby committed offence punishable under section 395 R/W section 149, P.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court.
I further charge you accused that on aforesaid date, time and place, during the commission of dacoity in prosecution of your common object, committed murder of deceased Allah Bux by fire, shot and inflicted fire shots injuries to Muhammad Yousif, thereby committed offence punishable under sections 397, P.P.C. R/W section 149, P.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court.
I further charge you accused that on aforesaid date, time and place during the commission of dacoity, committed mis-chief and damaged glass of Jeep No,BA-2574 and committed offence under section 427, P.P.C. R/W section 149, P.P.C. and within the cognizance of this Court.
And, I further charge you accused Abdul Qadir Shar that on 27-3-2003 at about 0915 hours, voluntarily informed to police and led to investigation officer and police party to pointed place and where from you took out one Kalashnikov having number erased with magazine containing 10 live bullets of 7.62 bore, from Sar bushes and produced before Investigation Officer being unlicensed K.Kov. and thereby committed offence punishable under section 13-EAO and within the cognizance of this Court.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the aforesaid charges."
4. After perusal of charge and impugned judgment we have observed that none of the offences come within the ambit of scheduled offences of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. We have also observed that the learned trial Court even has not charged the appellant and other accused under section 302, P.P.C. for the commission of murder of deceased Allah Bux. We have also observed that during trial it .was not pointed out even by the appellant/accused about the jurisdiction of Anti- Terrorism Court established under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. It has been held in the case of Rashid Ahmed v. The State, PLD 1972 Supreme Court 271 that if a mandatory condition for the exercise of jurisdiction before a Court, Tribunal or Authority is not fulfilled then the entire proceedings which follow become illegal and suffer A from want of jurisdiction. After careful consideration of the whole matter we are of the view that the Anti-Terrorism Court having no jurisdiction to try the case and to pass judgment. It appears that the trial Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the instant case and the impugned judgment is set aside being untenable and without jurisdiction. The case is remanded with the direction to the Anti-Terrorism Court to remit the same to the Court of Session having jurisdiction for trial of the case in accordance with law. The Appeal and the listed Application stand disposed of in the above terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.