1. ' ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---Applicant Umar Farooque Phulpoto through instant criminal revision application has challenged the orders dated 1-12-2011 passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana and order dated 18-6-2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber.
2. ' On 10-11-2011 F.I.R. Bearing Crime No.132 of 2011 was lodged by applicant/complainant Umar Farooque at Police Station Nasirabad, for offence under sections 302, 324, 395, 427, 114, 148, 149, P.P.C. Read with sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. In nut-shell, the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that one Wadero Mazzan Khan Phulpto was murdered prior to this incident and the son of said Mazzan Khan used to extend threats to the applicant/complainant party. As per F.I.R. Of the instant case, on 10-11-2011, at the Telephone Exchange near Tunia Sheller, Nasirabad town, District KamberShandadkot, accused persons, named in the F.I.R., killed three persons, namely, Manzoor Ali, brother of complainant/applicant, Sikandar Ali and Pardeep Kumar.
3. ' A joint investigation team comprising SIO Karim Bux Chandio, DSP Ghulam Ali and SIP Parvez Ali Shah after completing investigation submitted report under section 170/173, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana, who vide order dated 1-12-2011 returned the report along with F.I.R. And other documents to the concerned SIO or presenting before the ordinary court having jurisdiction. The relevant observations recorded by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Larakana, are reproduced hereunder:-- "It is admitted fact that this F.I.R. Was lodged by the complainant Umar Farooque against the present accused due to personal enmity between the parties. As the alleged sections mentioned in the F.I.R. Have no nexus with sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, this case is not triable by this Court hence, the report under section 170/173, Cr.P.C. Along with original F.I.R.
4. And entire documents are returned to SIO Kareem Bux Chandio with directions to submit the same before the ordinary court of law having jurisdiction. The accused Khadim Hussain is remanded back to custody with directions to produce him before the concerned Court."
5. ' After that the case was challaned/presented before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shandadkot, which was then made over/transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber, on administrative ground, for disposal according to law.
6. ' The applicant/complainant filed an application before the learned trial Court i.e., the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber, seeking transfer of the case to Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kambre vide his order dated 186-2013 dismissed the application of the applicant/complainant holding as under:-- "I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and find that the F.I.R. Was got registered by the complainant Umar Farooque against the accused persons with motive of previous murderous enmity. Even otherwise the order dated 1-12-2012 was passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana was not challenged before the Honourable High Court. The instant application has been filed after period of one year and seven months. The facts of the prosecution case clearly indicated that incident took place due to previous murder enmity, as such there appears no substance in the application and the same stands dismissed being meritless."
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contends that in this unfortunate incident, which took place at a public place i.e., Telephone Exchange near Tunia Sheller Nasirabad, three innocent persons were gunned down by the accused persons, whereby the accused persons created sense of terror and insecurity in the public at large, therefore, the offence falls within the meaning of terrorism and is to be tried by the Anti-Terrorism Court and not by the ordinary Court. In support of his argument he has relied upon an unreported order dated 9-8-2013 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.D-04 of 2011 re Eidal Khan Metlo v. The State.
8. ' The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, appearing on behalf of the State, opposed the instant application and supported the impugned orders, on the grounds that the incident of this case is the result of previous enmity between the parties, therefore, the provisions of Terrorism Act are not attracted.
9. ' We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record.
10. ' It is an admitted position that the order passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana dated 1-12-2011 was not challenged by the applicant/complainant at the relevant time and the same was complied with by the police by submitting challan before the ordinary Court.
11. ' The only question before us is whether the act of accused in the instant case attracts the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or not and in order to properly appreciate such question it would be advantageous to reproduce sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which read 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 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 or property, including Government premises, officials 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;
(ee) involves use 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 a organization, individual or group whatsoever, not recognized by the 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 of worship, or random firing to spread panic, or involves any forcible takeover of mosques or other places of worship;
(i) creates a serious risk to safety or public or 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 civic 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 involves serious violence against a member of the police force, armed forces, civil armed forces, or a public servant; involves in acts as part of armed resistance by groups or individuals against law enforcement agencies; 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 "terrorism" 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."
12. ' We have examined the allegations made in the F.I.R. In juxtaposition within section 6 of the Anti- Terrorism Act. As per F.I.R. The incident appears to be the result of previous enmity between the parties over the murder of one Mazzam Khan Phulpoto. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant/complainant that three persons have been killed in the incident, does not bring the case within the ambit of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Law says that while deciding the question of jurisdiction it is necessary to examine that the ingredients of the alleged occurrence have any nexus with the object of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. For determining whether a particular act is an act of terrorism or not, the motivation object design or purpose behind the same has to be seen. If the act of the accused was simply the result of previous enmity or personal vendetta, same would not attract the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act. In the instant case, from the bare reading of F.I.R., the offence committed by the accused does not appear to be covered by section 6 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997. We have also gone through the unreported order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.D-4 of 2011. The facts and circumstances that the cited cases are quite distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
13. ' For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality. The revision application filed by the applicant being without any merit is, therefore, dismissed.