' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Kashmore at Kandhkot, whereby the learned Judge refused to delete Sections 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act in Special Case No,60/2013, arising ow of FIR No,52/2012 of Police Station Guddu, under Sections 302, 324, 337-H(2), 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. And 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, holding therein that supplementary report submitted by police was based on the evidence already before the Court and no new fact and further evidence justifying the deletion of section of Anti-Terrorism Act were collected.
2. As per FIR, allegations against the applicants are that on 22.6.2012, at 8.15 a.m. They along with 23 other co-accused duly armed with K.Ks & G-3 Rifles made direct firing upon complainant party when they were reciting Holy Quran for their relative late Ghulam Muhammad Mazari, Security Guard of Habib Rafiq Company, in its office near N.H.W, resultantly four persons, namely, Abdul Subhan alias Dado Ajmal, Shakeel Ahmed, Arsalah alias Lalo and Ghulam Murtaza, all by cate Mazari, sustaining firearm injuries died on the spot and eight persons of Mazari community, namely, Akhtar Hussain, Ali Afsar, Shahzado, Asif Ali, Nazuk Hussain, Ahsan Ali, Akhtiar Ahmed, Sajawal and Sahabzada, so also other labourers sitting with them received fire shot injuries.
3. The main contention of learned Counsel for the applicants is that the alleged incident was result of Khosa-Mazari Community tribal vendetta/enmity and essential ingredients constituting sections 6/7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are lacking in the case, but learned trial Judge without considering the evidence collected by J.I.T during the course of reinvestigation and affidavits of seven injured persons, did not accept the supplementary report submitted by police for deletion of sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act from challan. He has further argued that counter-case of same incident registered by applicants party against the complainant party vide crime No,53/2012 of Police Station Guddu, under Sections 324, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. Has been challaned in the ordinary Court and is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, as such this case should be tried in the same ordinary Court.
4. Learned A.P.G, duly assisted by learned Counsel for complainant, opposed the instant revision application on the ground that in morning time accused made indiscriminate firing with automatic weapons at the office of one Security Company near National Highway causing death of four persons and injuring more than 20 persons and had put the general public in the office and on road under imminent danger to their lives and thereby created a sense of fear and insecurity and the learned Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court has rightly declined the request of police.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the parties Counsel and have gone through the material so made available.
6. In this case on 24.3.2012 final challan was submitted under Sections 302, 324, 337-H(2), 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. And Sections 6 and 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act. Later on an application under Section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was filed for transfer of case to ordinary Court which was dismissed and revision application filed against the said order was dismissed in non-prosecution. After that accused moved an application to D.I.G Police, Larkana for reinvestigation of case and J.I.T was formed under the head of DSP, who submitted report recommending deletion of sections of Anti- Terrorism Act. Suplementary challan thereafter was submitted but that also was not accepted by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court and his order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision Application No,40/ 2013, wherein directions were issued for moving trial Court for decision afresh. The trial Court again rejected the supplementary report. The accused third time again approached this Court through Criminal Revision Application No,02/ 2014, wherein affidavits of some injured persons of the incident were filed, on which directions were given to Investigating Officer for submitting supplementary report before the trial Court and accordingly same was filed but trial Court again refused to delete the sections of Anti-Terrorism Act from case vide impugned order, hence this criminal revision application.
7. We have gone through the impugned order, wherein learned Judge has refused to accept the supplementary report on the ground that the way the incident had happened has not been denied and the story of prosecution case clearly reveals the ingredients of fear so also insecurity to disturb the life of public at large. He further held that there was no new fact and further evidence to disprove such ingredients in the case.
8. It is settled law that whenever any action is taken which creates fear and insecurity in any section of people, the offence would fall within the ambit of case as contemplated under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Reliance is placed on the case of Nazeer Ahmed V. Nooruddin reported in 2012 SCM R 517, wherein it has been observed that:- "Neither the motive nor intent for commission of the offence is relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court. It is the act which is designed to create sense of insecurity and or to destabilize the public at large, which attract the provisions of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which in the case in hand was designed to create sense of insecurity amongst the co-villagers."
9. Keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for determining the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, we have examined the J.I.T report, so also supplementary challan. As per J.I.T report, both parties were already on inimical terms and the incident was result of tribal dispute.
There cannot be denial of the fact but the way wherein more than 25 persons duly armed with automatic weapons assaulted upon the complainant party and made indiscriminate firing at the office of Habib Rafiq Security Company Guddu, wherein not only complainant party sustained firearm injuries and four were killed, but several other persons (labourers of Security Company) were injured, which certainly caused uncertain atmosphere and fear in the locality. It all indicates that trial Court has rightly held that sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act have full application in the case in hand and have rightly been applied in the first instance and deletion thereof at later stage apparently seems to be with mala fide intention just to favour the accused. At this stage, there is no need to see motive or intention in the case which is not to be relevant for determining the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court as is held in the above-referred case law.
10. In view of above legal and factual position we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and has been passed properly. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.