' SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Through this constitutional petition, petitioner Shehzad Asif Raza has assailed the legality of order dated 6-7-2011 passed by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-f, Multan whereby an application made by the petitioner for transfer of case F.I.R. No,131 of 2009 dated 12-10-2009 registered under sections 324/109/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Civil Lines District Sahiwal to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Abdullah Umar Khali, who is also the complainant of case F.I.R. No,284 of 2011 registered under sections 337-F(v)/337-L(2)/337-F(i)/379, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Lines District Sahiwal registered against Jahanzeb, Amir and others, after arguments in pre-arrest bail application of the accused in the said case, along with his companions were coming out of the courtroom when the accused party attacked upon them; that the occurrence of this case was purely an outcome of the previous enmity prevailing between the parties and has got no nexus with the act of terrorism; that there was no intention to create fear or insecurity in the society or to overawe the government or the public or a section of public or community or sect; that the alleged fear or insecurity may be by product of the occurrence and only an unintended consequence; that no person from the public was injured in the occurrence but the learned trial Court has not looked into this aspect of the case and dismissed the application of the petitioner arbitrarily, therefore, the application is liable to be accepted and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Relies on case titled "Basharat Ali v. Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II Gujranwala (PLD 2004 Lahore 199)", "Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique and others (PLD 2009 Lahore 11)" and "Ahmad Jan v. Nasrullah and others (2012 SCMR 59 [Appellate Jurisdiction]) . "
3. On the other hand learned A.A.-G. Has contended that the occurrence of this case had taken place in the premises of Sessions Court Sahiwal where a large number of persons from the public and the staff was present; that the accused had resorted indiscriminate firing as a result of which six persons were injured and leg of one of the victims was amputated; that due to the said barbarious happening outside the Court, the Courts were closed and the Advocates observed strike, therefore, the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.A.-G. For the State and have gone through the available record.
5. According to F.I.R. No,131 dated 12-10-2009, complainant Abdullah Umar Khan, who had got registered a case F.I.R. No,284 of 2009 under sections 337-F(v)/337-F(i)/337-L(2)1379, P.P.C. At Police Station Fateh Sher against Jahanzeb Zebi, Amir alias Khalifa, Fakhar-uzZaman Goga, who had cone to the Sessions Court Sahiwal in connection with the hearing of their pre-arrest bail. After hearing in the said bail at about 9-30 a.m., when the complainant along with Jahanzeb Abdullah, Zeeshan, Imran, Waqas Shabbir and Adeeb came out of the Court room, accused namely Jahanzeb alias Zebi, Amir alias Khalifa, Fakhar-uzZaman alias Goga. Qamar-uz-Zaman alias Billu Mori, Shahid, Azhar, Boo Asif Gulzar, Asif alias Billa, Rana Yasir, Kashi. Khanu alias Tedda, Sheharyar alias Beeti, Azeem Chuhi, Ijaz alias Jajji and five unknown accused persons came there. Fakhar-uz-Zaman fired with his pistol which hit Abdullah Umar Khan and his second fire hit Zeeshan, Jehanzeb alias Zaibi fired which hit Zeeshan on his right knee, Amir fired which hit Zeeshan on his right knee, Qamar-uz-Zaman alias Billu Mori fired with his pistol which hit Imran on his left leg, Azhar fired which hit Imran on his right thigh, Shahid fired which hit Jahanzeb Abdullah under his belly and left leg, Asif Bill fired which hit Waqas Shabbir on the left side of chest and right arm. Yasir gave butt blow to Adeeb while Kashi, Sheharyar and other unknown accused made indiscriminate firing in order to create fear and insecurity among the people present in the Court compound.
6. It is an admitted fact that the occurrence of this case had taken place within the premises of Sessions Court Sahiwal. The Anti-Terrorism Act was promulgated in the year 1997 and the very object and purpose behind the some was to provide speedy and expeditious mechanism for the trial of heinous offences in order to prevent terrorism and sectarian violence. The definition of word "Terrorism" has been provided under section 6 of the Act as under:-- "(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls with the meaning of subsection (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 or 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 subsection (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 pubic 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;
(ee) involves se of explosives by any device including bomb blast;
(f) incites hatred and contempt on religious, sectarian or ethnic basis to stir up violence or cause internal disturbance;
(g) involves taking the law in own hand, award of any punishment by an organization, individual or group whatsoever, not recognized by law, with a view to coerce, intimidate or terrorize public, individuals, groups, communities, Government officials and institutions, including Law Enforcement Agencies beyond the purview of the law of the land;
(h) involves firing on religious congregations, mosques, imambargahs, churches, temples and all other places or worship, or random firing to spread panic, or involves any forcible takeover of mosque or other places of worship;
(i) creates a serious risk to safety of 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 disrupts civil life;
(j) involves the burning of vehicles or any other serious form of arson;
(k) involves extortion of money (bhatta) or property;
(1) is designed to seriously interfere with or seriously disrupt a communications system or public utility service;
(m) involves serious coercion or intimidation of a public servant in order to force him to discharge or to refrain from discharging his lawful duties; or
(n) involves serious violence against a member of the police force, armed forces, civil armed forces, or a public servant;
(o) involves in acts as part of armed resistance by groups or individuals against law enforcement agencies;
(p) involves in dissemination, preaching ideas, teachings and beliefs as per own interpretation on FM stations without explicit approval of Government or its concerned departments.
(3) the use or threat or use of any action falling within subsection (2), which involves the use of fire- arms, explosives or any other weapon, is terrorism, whether or not subsection (1)(c) is satisfied.
(4) In this section "action" includes an act or a series of acts.
(5) In this Act, terrorism includes any act done for the benefit of a proscribed organization.
(6) A person who commits an offence under this section or any other provision of this Act, shall be guilty of an act of terrorism.
(7) In this Act, a "terrorist" means:
(a) a person who has committed an offence of terrorism under this Act, and is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism;
(b) a person who is or has been, whether before or after the coming into force of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, shall also be included in the meaning given in Clause (a) above."
7. The Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was amended from time to time and now it has attained the form of a complete statute to deal with the acts of terrorism with iron hands. The definition of the word "Terrorism" as it stands today was added to the Act through an amendment in year 2001. The amended section 6(1)(b) ibid satisfies the "design" and section 6(1)(c) denotes the "purpose" in respect of terrorist act and the other essential ingredients i,e, mens rea is provided under 'section 6(1)(b) and (c). The terrorist act is one which is necessarily committed with the intention and purpose to create sense of fear or insecurity in the society. In order to determine as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, it would be essential to have glance over the allegations made in the F.I.R., record of the case and the surrounding circumstances. It is also necessary to determine that all the ingredients of alleged offence have any nexus with the object of the case contemplated under sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Whether a particular act is an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, objection, design or the purpose behind the said Act is to be seen. It is also to be seen as to whether the said Act has created the sense of fear or insecurity in the public or any section of the public or community or in any sect.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the occurrence was an outcome of the previous enmity, the sense of fear or insecurity allegedly prevailed in the area, might be a by product of the occurrence but it has no nexus with the terrorism, therefore, the case is liable to be transferred to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction. Learned counsel has relied on case titled "Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Siddique and others (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 11)". Bashir Ahmad, the complainant of the said case along with Ameer All alias Bhutto, his brother and others were on the way in motorcars from Sharaqpur Sharif to village Fatoowala and when he reached near the Haveli of Naseem alias Mithoo, all of a sudden Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Yaqoob, Muhammad Khalid Mahmood and Muhammad Idrees and others suddenly emerged from the said Haveli and started firing at the complainant party as a result of which four persons namely Ameer Ali alias Bhutto, Jamil Ahmad, Muhammad Ashraf and Mushtaq Ahmad lost their lives and Muhammad Arfakhshand sustained serious injuries and after accomplishing the mission, they Made good their escape while making aerial firing and creating terror and insecurity in the locality.
The motive leading to the incident was stated to be bloodshed enmity between the parties. In the said case, the occurrence had taken place in the Haveli of one Naseem alias, Mithu and not at the public place or in the Court compound as in the ihstant case. Therefore, the aforesaid case law is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. In the second case titled "Ahmad Jan v. Nasrullah and others (2012 SCMR 59) f Appellate Jurisdiction" relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, four accused persons, one armed With pistol and the others with knife and sticks attacked upon the complainant party in consequence of which Sher Jan died and Naseeb Ullah received injuries. The occurrence had not taken place at public place, therefore, the case was directed to be tried by ordinary court as no act of terrorism was reflected.
10. In the third case titled "Basharat Ali v. Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala (PLD 2004 Lahore 199)" relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, four persons were murdered and eight were seriously injured in village Behroopgarh situated in District Gujranwala in an assault carried out by one group of persons against another in furtherance of an ongoing enmity.
11. Under Clause 4 of the Third Schedule (Scheduled offences), of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Anti-Terrorism Court to the exclusion of any other Court shall try the offences relating to the following, namely:--
(i) Abduction or kidnapping for ransom;
(ii) use of fire-arms or explosives by any device, including bomb blast in a mosque, imambargah, church, temple or any other place of worship, whether or not any hurt or damage is caused there; or
(iii) firing or use of explosives by any device, including bomb-blast in the Court premises."
12. In order to determine as to whether the offence would fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Act, it is essential to look into the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the record of the case and the surrounding circumstances. It is also required to examine that the ingredients of the alleged offence have any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under section 6, 7, and 8 of the Act. Whether a particular act is an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, objection, design and the purpose behind the said act is to be seen. It is to be seen whether the said act had created a sense of insecurity in the public or not. The complainant party had come out of the Court after hearing of pre-arrest bail, all the opponents while armed with fire-arms attacked upon the complainant party as a result of which six persons were injured and a leg of one of the victims was amputated. The Courts were closed and the lawyers lodged protest by observing strike for the commission of heinous offence inside the Court compound where numerous persons including Advocates, their clerks, litigants, and Courts' staff including Presiding Officers were present. Such an act of barbarism is liable to be dealt with iron hands and under the Third Schedule of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 it is the Anti-Terrorism Court which has been vested with the jurisdiction to try the cases of firing or use of explosive by any device including bomb-blast in the Court premises.
Therefore, it is the' learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court which has exclusive jurisdiction to try this case and the application filed under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial Court.
' In view of above, the petition in hand is without any merits, the same stands dismissed.