' The petitioner . Challenges the validity of order passed by the learned Special Judge; Anti- Terrorism Court-III, Lahore dated 15-1-2014 through instant constitutional petition filed under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Facts necessitating the filing of instant petition, tersely, are that on 13-5-2013 at about 3-00 p.m., Liaqat Ali SI/SHO Police Station Mandi Faizabad along with police posse was on sentrigo at Herray Road where he received an information that rival parties of F.I.R. No.172 dated 13-5-2013 registered under sections 324/379/148/149/337F(iii)/ 337A(i)/337L(2), P.P.C. At Police Station Mandi Faizabad were busy in exchanging firing whereupon at 2-45 p.m., he along with Ameer Ahmad ASI and other police contingents reached near the Dhari of Munawwar Ali Gujjar where the petitioner along with his co-accused namely Naseer Ahmad, Shabbir Ahmad alias Bhola, Tanveer Afzal, Naveed Afzal, Abbas, Asif, Ishaq, Irfan, Ghulam Mustafa alias Tariq, Younas, Shoukat, Ali Akbar, Nazir and four unknown persons while armed with firearms as being in two groups were making fire shots, on seeing the police party as well as the complainant and eye-witnesses of the above mentioned criminal case started indiscriminate firing on the police party. The complainant SHO Liaqat Ali warned them to stop firing but the same went in vain. The petitioner and his co-accused took their heels from the spot and allegedly snatched SMG Rifle bearing No.28432 from Abdul Rehman 1355/C along with 60 live bullets and two magazines and a bandolier. On hot pursuits made by the police contingents, Ali Akbar fell to the ground and was subdued by the police party but again the petitioner and his co-accused got him rescued.
3. On the conclusion of investigation, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was prepared and was presented in special court, consequently, the case was entrusted to the above mentioned court and on application filed by the petitioner under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to the effect that facts and circumstances of the case did not make out a case to be tried by the learned special court but the application was turned down vide impugned order.
4. In support of the instant petition, learned counsel has argued that during the alleged incident, no person from the police force received any injury; uniform of any member of the police contingents was not torn; there was no serious violence against the members of the police party which is the condition precedent to invoke the jurisdiction of special court constituted under Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, instant application may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon a case titled Taj Muhammad v. Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court and another (PLD 2003 Lahore 588).
5. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has vehemently opposed the submissions by arguing that the petitioner and his co-accused made straight indiscriminate firing at the police party and the complainant including the P.Ws. Of the case mentioned hereinabove, snatched an official rifle, bandolier, magazine and bullets from Abdul Rehman constable; co-accused of the petitioner namely Ali Akbar was apprehended at the spot but again by using force and coercion, intimidation and serious violence got him rescued from the police party, in this way, by virtue of section 6(2) its clause (m) and (n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the case in hand squarely falls within the mischief of 'terrorism' and the petitioner and his co-accused can be termed as terrorists as they displayed violence against law-enforcing agency. Lastly, it has been submitted that running epoch needs element of terrorism to be dealt with iron hands such like persons who coerce and cause serious violence against law-enforcing forces, therefore, instant petition may be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Section 6 of the Act ibid defines "terrorism". Its clause (b) and (c) primarily take it to its preamble and moreso nexus of the, actions of the wrongdoer must be to terrorize the public in general and to spread the sense of fear and insecurity in the particular community or sect of people. Clause (m) of the section ibid specifically relatable to the public servant excluding the forces of law enforcing agencies whereas clause (n) of the section ibid deals the forces of law enforcing, agencies. For better understanding clause (n) is reproduced as follows:- ' Section 6(2)(n): "Involves serious violence against a member of the police force, armed forces, civil armed forces or a public servant".
' Now in the light of this particular clause, the narrative of the accused has been observed that allegedly indiscriminate firing was made at the police contingent by 17 persons out of whom, 13 were nominated and 4 were unknown mentioned in the F.I.R. No person from the police party received even a single scratch, what to say about the receipt of bullet injuries. During the whole incident, uniform of any of the police officials was not torn. So far as snatching of an official rifle from Abdul Rehman 1355/C along with live bullets, magazine and bandolier is concerned; it is in comprehendible that in presence of reasonable police contingent, how the same was snatched and again Ali Akbar co-accused of the petitioner was apprehended at the spot but was got rescued by the petitioner and his co-accused. This fact again is an enigmatic to the efficiency and working of the police. No person even from the side of the accused persons mentioned in the F.I.R.
Received any fire shot injury at the hands of the police party. In these circumstances, the element of involvement of serious violence against police force lacks. In this regard, guidance has been sought from case of Taj Muhammad v. Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court and another reported in PLD 2003 Lahore 588 wherein this court has observed as follows:-- "It is true that if the F.I.R. In this case is to be taken into consideration then apparently some public servants had allegedly been obstructed from performance 'of their official duty and had also been assaulted upon by the accused party but at the same time it is equally true that most of the allegations contained in the said FA.R. Had been found during the investigation of this case to be untrue. For instance, it had been alleged in the F.I.R. That the petitioner and others were indulging in theft of electricity and it has been maintained before us by the learned Assistant Advocate- General and the learned counsel for the complainant that the accused party were illegally running a private Grid Station on their own but during the investigation no evidence whatsoever had become available on the record to support or substantiate such allegations. In the F.I.R. It has been maintained by the complainant that he had been given blows with an iron-rod on his head and nose and he had also received a brick-bat injury on his left knee but the Medico-legal Certificate issued in respect of the complainant showed that he had received only one scratch on the bridge of his nose and had not sustained any injury on his head or knee. It had also been maintained in the F.I.R. That one of the accused persons had fired at the complainant with his revolver but the bullet had got stuck in that revolver and, thus the said attempt to fire at the deceased had remained abortive. The Investigating Officer of this case has stated before us today in unequivocal terms that according to the investigation no firearm was available or used in the occurrence at all. We have further noticed that according - to the F.I.R., apart from the complainant, three other public servant namely Rana Muhammad Irfan, Ahmad Khan and Ijaz Shah had also been beaten up by the accused party during the alleged occurrence but the record of investigation shows that Ahmad Khan and Ijaz Shah were never medically examined for any injury and Rana Muhammad Irfan had sustained only a bruise on the right side of his face. No fire-arm was recovered during the investigation of this case and the use of an iron-rod was also not found by the Investigating Officer to have been established. All these facts available on the record have prima fade convinced us that the complainant party has resorted to quite a bit of exaggeration in the F.I.R. And an attempt was made therein to bolster and enhance the seriousness of the incident so as to attract the jurisdiction of a court constituted under the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997. Such exaggeration might have been resorted to by the complainant party to teach a lesson to the accused party and to get them punished for more than what they might have actually done at the spot. This intention on the part of the complainant party to teach a lesson to the accused party also had a background. It is available on the record that the accused party had complained against the complainant party before the Federal Ombudsman and the matter had ultimately been decided against the complainant party in the recent past."
"We have further observed that according to the scheme of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 it is not every disruption of or interference with the duties of a public servant or every coercion, intimidation or violence against a public servant which attract the definition of 'terrorism' contained in section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as what the provisions of section 6(2) (1), (m) and (n) to the case in hand has appeared to us to be quite suspect".
8. After considering all the pros and cons of the case, the court is ID of the view that provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act do not attract their' applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the case of the petitioner and his co-accused is ordered to be, transferred to the court of plenary court. Thus, learned special court is directed to send the file of this case to the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib for its entrustment to the court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal in accordance with law. 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.