' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 15- 12-2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala, whereby the application under section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 moved by respondents Nos.2 and 3/accused for transfer of case FIR No.200/2014 dated 15-5-2014 under sections 336-B, 452, 34, P.P.C.
To a court of ordinary jurisdiction has been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that offence under section 336-B, P.P.C. Is a scheduled offence and is triable by the special court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 has vehemently argued that irrespective of the fact that offence under section 336-B, P.P.C. Has been included in the Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the same has to be read jointly with the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as well as with the preamble of the Act and that the offences mentioned in the Schedule to the Act should have nexus with sections 6 and 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; further that the offence mentioned in the FIR has no nexus with terrorism as the alleged occurrence took place in a room of the house of the victim and that has not created any sense of fear and insecurity in the mind of public at large.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Law on the subject is very much clear. Section 12 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 clearly provides that a scheduled offence committed in an area in a province shall be triable only by Anti-Terrorism Court exercising territorial jurisdiction in relation to such area. Offence committed by the accused in this case falls under section 336-B, P.P.C. And the same duly reflects in the Third Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Plain reading of section 336-A, P.P.C. Provides that "Whoever with the intention or knowingly causes or attempts to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance or any substance which is deleterious to human body when it is swallowed, inhaled, comes into contact or received into human body or otherwise shall be said to cause hurt by corrosive substance", and in the Explanation it has been clarified that "corrosive substance" also includes every kind of acid which has a corroding effect and is deleterious to human body. Paragraph No.4(iv) of the Third Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 clearly postulates that the Anti-Terrorism Court to the exclusion of any other court shall try the offence relating to hurt caused by corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance. Medico-Legal Certificate issued in the case clearly reflects that the injuries on the person of the victim were result of acid.
6. Learned trial Judge while deciding the application of respondents Nos.2 and 3 has relied upon the judgment dated 23-4-2013 passed in Writ Petition No.2902 of 2013 by another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and has been reported as 2013 PCr.LJ (Lahore) 1880, and has further observed that the same has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No.700 of 2013 titled "Malik Z.Afar Hussain v. Saifullah Salem Arshad and others". We are afraid, the learned trial Judge remained totally fail to distinguish the present case than the case in the aforementioned Writ Petition No.2902 of 2013 as in that case the matter under consideration was application of section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dismissing Civil Petition No.700 of 2013 filed against the judgment dated 23-4-2013 passed in Writ Petition No.2902 of 2013 has observed as under:-- "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned judgment, particularly para. 7 thereof reproduced herein above. The learned High Court after having taken into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, rightly came to the conclusion that section 7 of the Act does not attract in this cases as the offence did not create panic or sense of insecurity among the people in terms of the provisions of the Act."
' The above referred paragraph clearly reflects that section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 does not attract in the absence of any panic or sense of insecurity among the people as provided under the law itself, but the learned trial Judge remained oblivious of para 5 of the judgment of the apex Court wherein it has been observed as under:-- "In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. However, we leave it open for examination the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court in respect of the offence of causing hurt by corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance, as inserted in the Third Schedule vide notification noted herein above."
' In this case, there was no question of application of section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 that, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, necessarily requires its nexus with the preamble of the Act, rather the matter only relates to the trial of offence against the respondents under section 336-B, P.P.C. That is a scheduled offence. In the case of Muhammad Yousaf v. The State and another (PLD 2014 Lahore 644), another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a case relating to the similar offence has observed that the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 shall have direct jurisdiction in the offences mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and no nexus is required to be searched for such scheduled offences as very commission of the said offences creates terror, panic and sense of insecurity amongst the general public. The Hon'ble Division Bench has also taken into consideration the case of Malik Zafar Hussain V. Saifullah Saleem Arshad and others (Civil Petition No.700 of 2013) supra and while dismissing the writ petitions filed against the orders of dismissal of applications under section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transferring the matters to the ordinary court has observed as under:-- "From the above mentioned verdict of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, it is clear that above said judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court was confined to the fact and circumstances of the case in question and point of jurisdiction in respect of the offences of causing hurt by corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of corrosive substances as inserted in Third Schedule was kept open for Anti-Terrorism Court."
' In the case of Rana Abdul Ghaffar v. Abdul Shakoor and 3 others (PLD 2006 Lahore 64), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:-- "According to subsection (I) of section 12 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 an offence mentioned in the Third Schedule appended with the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 can be tried only by an Anti- Terrorism Court constituted under the said Act and no other Court has any jurisdiction in that regard. The Third Schedule appended with the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 not only mentions the offence of 'terrorism' but also mentions other offences which now, through the above mentioned amendment introduced on 11-1-2005, includes an offence of abduction or kidnapping for ransom.- This unmistakably shows that an Anti-Terrorism Court can try not only an offence of 'terrorism' as defined in section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 but it can also try any other offence which is declared by the law to be exclusively triable by such a Court."
' The same view has also been expressed in the case of Mst. Ruqqia Bibi v. Special Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court and 2 others (2015 PCr.LJ 456).
7. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of this case and the case-law referred above, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 15-12-2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Gujranwala being not sustainable in the eyes of law is set aside resulting in dismissal of the application moved by the accused/respondents Nos.2 and 3 for transfer of case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of four months after the receipt of this order.