' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through the instant criminal revision petition filed under sections 435, 439, read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has called in question the vires of impugned order dated 7-5-2011, passed by learned Judge, Special Court Anti-Terrorism Rawalpindi Division and Islamabad . Capital Territory; whereby after recording cursory evidence, the learned trial Court had summoned the petitioner as an accused in complaint filed by complainant/respondent No,1 under sections 365-A, 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 382, 420, 468, 471, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. Briefly put facts of the case arising out of the instant revision petition are that Nazeer Ahmed complainant/respondent No,1 filed a complaint under sections 365-A, 3377-A(i), 337-F(v); 382, 420, 468, 471.
148. 149, P.P.C., against the petitioner before the learned Judge, Special Court Anti-Terrorism Rawalpindi Division and Islamabad Capital Territory with the averments that on 3-3-2011 the complainant along with Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah was coming back from Chowa Syedan Sharif to Talla Gang via Chakwal through vehicle No,IDN/1473. When they reached near Janga Morr, a black colour car overtook them and signalled to stop the car. The complainant stopped his vehicle on which the accused/petitioner along with four unknown persons amongst whom one was holding pistol in his hand, started beating them. The armed person while pointing pistol on the abdomen of Sajjad Hussain Shah forcibly took them out of the car and boarded on their own vehicle on the pistol point and thereby kidnapped them for ransom. That the accused persons while folding the eyes of the complainant and Sajjad Hussain Shah took them to an unknown house gave severe fists and kick blows.- Thereafter, the accused/petitioner forcibly took the signatures of the complainant/respondent on a stamp paper amounting to Rs,22,83,000, and also snatched Rs,7,000. The accused also took certain other articles from the vehicle including cheques, copies of CNIC Stamps etc. The complainant/respondent No,1 lodged a case F.I.R. No, 94, dated 4-3-2011 offence under section 365, P.P.C., however, the police did not investigate the case on merits, therefore, he was constrained to file complaint. The learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Rawalpindi Division and Islamabad Capital Territory after recording cursory statements of the witnesses, in terms of order dated 7-5-2011, summoned the petitioner, which has been assailed by means of instant criminal revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is against the facts of the case and law applicable thereto.. Learned counsel next argues that the petitioner has been supplying the crush of stone to respondent No,1 amounting to Rs, 22,87,000 and the sole intention behind filing the instant complaint is to usurp that amount. Even otherwise, a case bearing F.I.R.
No,94, dated 4-3-2011 offence under section 365, P.P.C., already stands registered; therefore, there was no need to file the complaint. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that by way of filing complaint, the complainant has concealed material facts and the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has totally escaped notice of the same. When confronted whether the order of the Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 can be assailed through revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to reply satisfactorily.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has been afforded preliminary hearing. We have also gone through the record available on file and the law on the subject, in particular.
5. Firstly we are inclined to discuss the status of F.I.R. With that of complaint case. Admittedly, if informer of any crime report is not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the police, he is fully authorized/empowered by law to avail alternative remedy of filing complaint case. So much so as per pronouncements of the apex Court of the country, it has been emphasized that when challan case and the complaint case are taken up together by any trial Court, it would be incumbent upon the trial Court to conduct trial of complaint case first and then need be, to conduct the trial of the challan case. Therefore, it can be said without any hesitation that any mode in the challan case can fully be applied on the complaint case.
6. Perusal of impugned order dated 7-5-2011, impugned herein, IA reflects that before passing the order, the learned trial Court had recorded cursory statements of the witnesses. Moreover, the copies of MLRs, photostat copies of cheques etc., were also produced before the learned Judge, Special Court Anti-Terrorism and the learned court seized with the matter after going through the record on the touchstone of the preliminary statements of complainant as well as his witnesses, had rightly summoned the petitioner. We have scanned the impugned order and found, it well- versed from every angle.
7. Now we dilate upon the maintainability of the instant .Revision petition, which admittedly has been filed against the order of a Special Court, constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Section 31 of the Act deals with this question, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "31. Finality of judgment.---A judgment or order passed, or sentence awarded, by an [Anti- Terrorism Court], subject to the result of an appeal under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court."
There is no cavil to this proposition that no petition under sections 435, 439, Cr.P.C, or any application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is maintainable under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. There is also no provision in the Act for challenging the order of Anti-Terrorism Court by way of revision or criminal miscellaneous application. Sections 25, 31 and 32 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which are to be read in conjunction with each other, do not permit the order passed by Special Court to be challenged in revision or under inherent jurisdiction of High Court.
8. The accumulative effect of our discussion is that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court in any manner whatsoever. Moreover, criminal revision petition filed under sections 435, 439 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not maintainable in the circumstances. Resultantly, the instant petition being devoid of any merits stands dismissed in limine.
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.1 and 2-M of 2011
9. As the main appeal has been dismissed by this Court today, therefore, the instant applications have lost relevance, which are accordingly dismissed.