Sikandar Zulqarnain Saleem, J.--The above captioned writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as in both the writ petitions validity and legality of the same order dated 16.09.2014 rendered by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, has been challenged whereby an application filed by Javed Akhtar Satti alias ,Javed Inqlabi Respondent No, 2 under Section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 seeking transfer of case FIR No, 121, dated 7.8.2014, registered under Section 324, 393, 353, 186, 341, 440, 342, 412, 148, 149, PPC read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Sattiyan District Rawalpindi to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction has been accepted and, the case file was returned to the Prosecution for submission to the Court of competent jurisdiction for the its disposal in accordance with law.
2. For proper appraisal of issue relating to jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, it is important to reproduce F.I.R. Being a root document of prosecution which is as under:-- "That FIR No, 121 dated 7.8.2014, under Sections 324, 395, 353, 186, 341, 440, 342. 148, 149, 452, PPC read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Sattiyan District Rawalpindi was registered on the complaint of Muhammad Lehrasib Khan, Inspector/SHO, alleging therein that on 6.8.20f4 at about 5.30 p.m. The complainant (Muhammad Lehrasib Khan. Inspector/SHO) along with other police officials was discharging his official duty at the Police Station when Javed Akhtar, Satti alias Javed Inqlabi Respondent No, 2, along with 29 other co-accused mentioned in FIR and 100/150 unknown co-accused (who could be identified on confrontation) while armed with lethal weapons in furtherance of their common object attacked upon the police station and caused injuries to the complainant as well as Hafeez S.I. And Sajjad, ASI, who were also present at the police station. If was further stated in the FIR that the afore-mentioned assailants also damaged the furniture of the police station and snatched two pistols. The allegations of ineffective firing and hostage taking of staff were also made in the FIR.
According to the contents of FIR motive of the occurrence was that Mst. Mehwish Hameed nephew of Sana-ul-Haq Satti had died whereupon her brother Majid Hameed filed an application on 13.6.2014 with regard to her murder by her in laws and in this regard Rapat No, 28 dated 13,6.2014 was recorded and on account of non-registration of case Sana-ul-Haq Satti along with accused mentioned in the FIR attacked upon the complainant and committed occurrence.
3. The record reveals that after registration of FIR, the police arrested Javed Akhtar Satti alias Javed Inqalabi Respondent No, 2 herein and sent the Challan to Anti-Terrorism Court No, II, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi. On receipt of Challan, Respondent No, 2 was summoned to face trial, who during the pendency of the case filed an application under Section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, questioning the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No, II, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi allowed the application and the case file was returned to the prosecution for submission to the Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal in accordance with law while observing as under: "In the case in hand, complainant has set up the motive which appears to be afterthought and does not get support from the attending circumstances of the case. It appears that the complainant has deliberately attempted to bring this case within the ambit of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, 1997 by setting up the motive which has no nexus with the commission of this occurrence. It further appears that in order to achieve the purpose the complainant has tried to twist the facts of the case. There is no denial that complainant passed derogatory and insulting remarks against the whole "Satti tribe" which infuriated and motivated the people of "Satti tribe" as a result of which the instant occurrence took place. From the facts and attending circumstances of this case it also appears that on account of private motivation and personal vendetta accused party allegedly attacked and assaulted the complainant and this action of the accused party has no nexus with the "design" and "purpose" mentioned in Section 6(1)(b) and (c) of Act, 1997. For the foregoing reasons, it appears that commission of offence under Section 7, ATA, 1997 by the accused is not made out whereas other offences mentioned in the FIR are triable by the ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction."
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State and learned counsel for the petitioner in connected with petition have unanimously contended that from the contents of FIR and statements of the eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. And other material available on record, provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are fully attracted in the case in hand; hence, the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Rawalpindi has wrongly allowed the application of the Respondent No, 2; that offence under Section 452, PPC has been wrongly deleted during the investigation as definition of house trespass does cover the Police Station; that this is a fit case falling within the definition of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as there is no evidence that the complainant and the accused have any private vendetta; that this a case of real terrorism as police officials while performing their duties were attacked by the culprits, therefore, this case falls within the sub-Sections (m) and (n) of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, hence, both these writ petitions may be accepted and order passed by the learned Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court may be set aside.
5. Conversely, Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Accused-Respondent No, 2 while opposing this petition and in support of the order passed by the learned Judge, ATC-II, Rawalpindi contends that the occurrence had taken place on the road and not inside the police station as nobody could be entered in the police station which was situated at height and it was not possible for the accused to enter in the police station; that in fact the complainant had used the derogatory, filthy, irritating, uncultured remarks against the "Satti Community" in one criminal case which infuriated the entire "Satti Community" and many people from different places-areas had gathered to protest and expressed their displeasure in a quiet peaceful manner at the distant place away from the place of occurrence and there was no preplanned or criminal intention to attack the police; that neither any accused party was armed with any fire-arm nor was any fire-arm used in the so-called incident; that during the course of investigation offence under Section 452, PPC has been deleted as it has been proved during the investigation that no person had entered in the police station. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the motive set up by the complainant in the FIR was wrong and gets no support from the attending circumstances of the of this case as Rapat regarding the murder of Mehwish Hameed was recorded at Police Station Kotli Sattiyan, Rawalpindi at No, 28 dated 13.6.2014 and application under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. For registration of criminal case was accepted by the learned ASJ, Rawalpindi on.
25.7.2014, whereas the present incident took place on 6.8.2014, two months after the alleged motive mentioned in the FIR, hence, the motive mentioned by the complainant in the FIR stand falsified on the face of it. It is next contended that the complainant has stated in the FIR that so many persons had beaten him and caused injuries with dandas and pistol butts but astonishingly there are only three injuries on the person of the complainant which also falsified the story mentioned in the FIR..
Therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge, ATC-II, Rawalpindi may be upheld and both these writ petitions may be dismissed.
6. Issue involved in this petition is jurisdiction of Special Court and application of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act.
7, Section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which defines "terrorism" is reproduced as under:- [Terrorism.--(1) In this Act, "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls with the meaning of sub-section (2), and
(h) 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 a Foreign Government or population or an international organization] 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, media persons, business community or attacking the civilian, including damaging property by ransacking, looting, arson or by any other means, government officials, installations, security forces or law enforcement agenciesj: [Provided that nothing herein contained shall apply to a democratic and religious rally or a peaceful demonstration in accordance with law.]
(2) An "action" shall fall within the meaning of sub-section (1), if it:
(a) involves the doing or anything that cause 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 public or private property including damaging property by ransacking, looting or arson or by any other means.];
(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) ........................
(f)
[(g) involves taking the law in own hand, award of any punishment by an 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) ..
(i) ..
(j) ..
(k) ..
(l) ..
(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;
(n) involves serious violence against a member of the police force, armed forces, civil armed forces, or a public servant, [(o)
(p)
(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 weapons, is terrorism, whether or not sub-Section 1(c) is satisfied.
(3-A) ..........................
(4) ..
(5) ..
(6) ..
(7) ..
(a) ....
(b)
8. For determining the issue whether the offence is triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act or not nature of offence has to be seen in the light of the averments that how the same has been committed along with the particular place of incident and further that by that act a sense of fear and insecurity in the society has been created in the minds of the people at large or not.
9. We have straight away observed that according to the allegations leveled in the F.I.R.
Respondent No, 2 and his co-accused had launched an assault upon members of the police force so as to deter them from performing their official duties and had caused injuries to members of the police force including the complainant who was performing his duties as SHO Police Station Kotli Sattiyan District Rawalpindi at that time, if such allegations are accepted as correct at their face value then the actus reus attributed to Respondent No, 2 and his co-accused prima facie attracted the provisions of Section 6(2)(m)(n) of Act, 1997. Factum of firing by the accused at the police party had also been brought on the file and as such act of the accused fall within the purview of Section 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Section 6(2)(m) of Anti-Terrorism Act, involves serious coercion or intimidation of a public servant in order to force him to discharge or to refrain from discharging his lawful duties. The word 'serious' has been defined by Section 2(w) of the said Act to mean "dangerous to life or property". From the facts of the case it is clear that interference with or disruption of the duty of the public servants involved or coercion or intimidation of or violence against such public servants was "serious" enough to attract the definition of 'terrorism' contained in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
10. Police station which is normally to be established in the area so as to ensure safety and security to the people of the area. The "action" i,e, manner of the offence, involved in the matter, is an attack upon so established police station. Such action leads to an alarming situation and impression upon the people that if police officials and police stations are not safe then what impact will be upon general public. This would rather show that this is the worst situation of lawlessness, and no doubt under these circumstances, not only vicinity of that area but public-at-large will have serious effect of insecurity, lawlessness and uncertainty in their routine life.
11. Admittedly, police officials were deterred from .Their official duties, candidly. This is not a case of private vendetta, and action of accused persons reflects that it was a deliberate and intentional action of causing an assault at the member of police force being armed with lethal weapons therefore, the "action", involved in the matter cannot be presumed to have remained unnoticed by the locality nor can be said to be an ordinary offence. We are supported in our such view with the case of Matau Rehman v. Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad (2008 MLD 84), wherein it has been held as under: "We have straight away observed that according to the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. The petitioner and his co-accused had launched an assault upon members of the police force and some revenue officials so as to deter them from performing their officials duties and had caused injuries to as many as seven police offices, if such allegations are accepted as correct at their face value then the actus reus attributed to the petitioner and his co accused prima facie attracted the provisions 6(2)(m)(n) of Act, 1997."
Similarly, in the case of "Nazeer Ahmed and others vs. Nooruddin and another" (2012 SCM R 517), it was held as under: "Neither motive nor intention for commission of the offence was relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court nor was it the act which was designed to create sense of insecurity and/or to destabilize the public-at-large, which attracted the provisions of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
12. Even otherwise, there is no denial that the complainant had passed derogatory and insulting remarks against the whole "Satti tribe" which infuriated and motivated the people of "Satti tribe" as a result of which the instant occurrence took place, but action of the accused was not proper response to the misdeed of the SHO. They should have approached to his high ups in the police hierarchy instead of taking the law into their own hands. A physical harm to victim is not the sole criteria to determine the question of terrorism, what is to be seen in the psychological effect produced by the violent action or the potential of producing such an effect on the society as a whole in general or section in particular. As facts and circumstances of each case primarily govern the situation and attack the applicability of particular principle of law. In the civilized states/countries in which rule of law and judicial independence flourish, none is allowed to take the law into his own hands to end the acrimony existing between or among the parties. But in the present case, the adverse situation has arisen and if this is allowed, there would be endless deterioration of peaceful society in general and in implementation of law in particular.
13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and binding effect of dicta laid down by Honourable Supreme Court, this is a case of terrorism falling within the jurisdiction of anti- Terrorism Court. Therefore, both these writ petitions are allowed and order dated 16.9.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Rawalpindi division, Rawalpindi being illegal, unjust and not maintainable under the law is set aside and the learned judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi is directed to further proceed with the case in accordance with law.