' By means of instant constitutional petition filed in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Ms. Lory Vie Pimentel/petitioner has called into question the vires of impugned order dated 28-3-2012, passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,IV, Lahore; whereby the learned court below had transferred case F.I.R. No,779, dated 26-9-2011, primarily registered under sections 365, 452, 148, 149, P.P.C., at Police Station Defence-A, Lahore, (subsequently offence under section 365-A, P.P.C., was also added) to the court of ordinary jurisdiction; while exercising powers under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while addressing the Court submits that nevertheless primarily case was registered under section 365, P.P.C., however, subsequently on the supplementary statement of the petitioner being complainant of the case, offence under section 365-A, P.P.C., was also added. Further submits that in his statement. Mr. Joseph, the abductee/victim of the case, also submitted that the accused had demanded ransom; thereby attracting the provisions of section 365-A, P.P.C., hence the same prima facie bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, erred in law while transferring the case to the ordinary court. It is next argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasoning advanced by the learned court below while passing the impugned order are not only perverse rather in utter disregard to the pronouncements of the superior courts of the country on the subject, as well as, violative to explicit provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Finally prays that offence under section 365-A, P.P.C., being a scheduled offence exclusively triable by a Special Court, the impugned order having been passed in a hasty manner, the same is liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by learned counsel representing respondent No,5 while opposing the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner supports the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No,5 submits that contents of the crime lodged on the complaint of the petitioner it was not alleged that any ransom amount was demanded, hence prima facie facts of the case do not disclose the provisions of section 365-A, P.P.C. Further contends that even during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer opined that demand for ransom is doubtful. Learned counsel vehemently contends that as a matter of fact Hamza Shehbaz Sharif son of Chief Executive of the province entered into bond of marriage with respondent No,5 and on account of making it public, the same was disliked by the former, hence by fabricating a bull and cock story, by using the police hierarchy respondent No,5 was made scapegoat in a false/frivolous case. Further submits that on the direction of learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No,22134 of 2011, vide order dated 7- 10-2011, an inquiry was conducted by Major (R) Mobushar Ullah, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, who opined that the police officials (both SHO and the Incharge Investigation 'of the Police Station) went beyond their official obligations. In this backdrop learned counsel representing respondent No,5 submits that the facts of the case do not satisfy the ingredients of section 365-A, P.P.C., hence, while appreciating the material floating on the record in its true perspective and keeping in view the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer, the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,IV, Lahore, was justified in transferring the case and the impugned order does not invite any interference.
4. We have heard -the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No,5, as well as, learned Assistant Advocate-General and gone through the record available on file.
5. Perusal of record reveals that while lodging case F.I.R. No,779, dated 26-9-2011, registered under sections 365, 452, 148, 149, P.P.C., at Police Station Defence-A, Lahore, the complainant had not mentioned anything to the effect that the accused persons had kidnapped her son JOSEPH and demanded any ransom. It was subsequently during the supplementary statement of the complainant when she levelled the allegations of demand of ransom, hence nevertheless offence under section 365-A, P.P.C., was added, however, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrived at the conclusion that demand of ransom in the instant case was doubtful and the complainant had failed to lead any concrete evidence on this score.
6. Another important aspect of the case is that the remand granting order of learned Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court Noll, Lahore, was challenged before this Court through Writ Petition No,22134 of 2011 and vide order dated 7-10-2011, this Court had observed:-- "Since we have observed mala fide on the part of SHO Police Station, Defence-A, Lahore, Ateeq Dogar Inspector/ Investigating Officer and Zulfiqar Inspector/Incharge Investigation, therefore, we direct Inspector-General of Police, Punjab to get an inquiry held against the above mentioned aforesaid police officials through Major Mubashar Ullah, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and submit report to this court on the next date of hearing."
' Pursuant to ,above order, inquiry was conducted and while holding both the police officials (SHO and Incharge Investigation) guilty, the Inquiry Officer concluded that:- "From the above facts, it is evident that both the police officials IP Attique Dogar SHO Police Station Defence A and IP Zulfiqar Ahmed Incharge Investigation Police Station Defence-A Lahore acted beyond their official obligations. As far as the role of other police officials accompanying the I.O.
During the arrest of Ayesha Ahad is concerned, they were just following the orders of their superior officers and were not found involved.
' The Inquiry Officer further rendered the following recommendations:7 "(a) Strict departmental action should be taken against the police officers mentioned below for their misconduct and for not following the due process of law;
(i) Inspector Attique Dogar, SHO Police Station Defence A Division, Lahore.
(ii) Inspector Zulfiqar Ahmed, Incharge Investigation Police Station Defence A Division, Lahore.
(b) Case be registered against the above mentioned police officials under Article 155(c) of Police Order, 2002."
7. Besides, from the bare reading of the crime report it reveals that the complainant was working as maid under an agreement in the house of respondent No,5 and allegedly she was maltreated and her mobile phone was also snatched. Hence, by any stretch of imagination this cannot be termed as an act of 'terrorism', whereas, in the preamble of IA Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it finds mention as under:-- "WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offences and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto."
' When facts of the case are weighed on the touchstone of preamble of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it reveals that the case in hand does not satisfy the ingredients of the supra Act.
8. So far as question whether the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,IV, Lahore, was justified in transferring the case at preliminary stage is concerned, in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, section 265-D, deals on the point of taking cognizance by the criminal court, which reads as under:- "265-D. When charge is to be framed. If, after perusing the police report or, as the case may be, the complaint, and all other documents and statements filed by the prosecution, the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for proceeding with the trial of the accused it shall frame in writing a charge against the accused,"
From the bare perusal of above-said provision of Criminal Procedure Code, it is crystal clear that before framing of charge the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,IV, Lahore, after having considered that facts of the case do not satisfy the ingredients of section 365-A, P.P.C., rightly passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has badly failed to point out any illegality/infirmity in the impugned order dated 28-3-2012. Resultantly, the instant petition being devoid of legal justification, hereby stands. Dismissed.