MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.-- Through instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of the case from Anti-Terrorism Court No,1 Gilgit to the Court of Sessions Judge Ghizer, registered against him at Police Station Gahkuch in case FIR No,14/15 dated 26/04/15 under Sections 124-A, 189, P.P.C. Read with Sections 6/7 of A.T.A.-1997 and now he is facing trial before Anti-Terrorism Court No,1 Gilgit. The gist of allegations as contained in FIR are that on the fateful day, the petitioner/accused delivered a provocative speech in an election gathering, which prima facie attracted the penal provisions imposed in the FIR and now he is facing trial before Anti-Terrorism Court No,1 Gilgit.
2. The learned counsel further submitted that element of "terror" is completing lacking is the instant case and the order of learned trial Court dated 19/11/15 is not suitable in the eyes of law, whereby the transfer petition of the petitioner filed before the trial Court has been dismissed. The counsel when confronted as to why he filed writ petition, he submitted that only one appeal is provided under section 25 of ATA-1997 and interim order passed by Anti-terrorism Court cannot be challenged either by filing an appeal or revision and the only remedy available was to invoke jurisdiction of this Court through a writ petition.
3. The learned Dy. A.G. When confronted to meet the arguments raised at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there is ample evidence on the file in the shape of statement of P.Ws. Who were present during the public gathering and heard the obnoxious speech delivered by the petitioner and provisions of Section-124-A,. P.P.C. Are fully attracted in the case.
The learned Dy.A.G. When asked by the Court to point out any piece of evidence to show that because of the alleged speech so delivered any panic or terror was created as striking of "terror" was sine qua non for the application of Section-6 of the Act, and for a just and fair conclusion the learned Dy. A.G. Was asked to read the plain contents of FIR, the nature of accusation in FIR and its cumulative effects on the Society or a group of persons, may be placed before the Court, basing on which the prosecution claims that the petitioner committed an offence falling under the Act and his trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court was fair and proper. The learned Dy.A.G. Failed to convince us that the alleged speech/action of the petitioner created a serious risk to the safety of the public or a section of the public, which may tilt our mind in favour of Sections 6/7 of ATA imposed against the petitioner. Section 6(2) of the Act is very clear and it does not need any further and exhaustive interpretation by this Court, as outrightly we are convinced that the petitioner has wrongly been booked under sections 6/7 of ATA-197, and any scholarly interpretation of the law is not required, as the law was un-ambiguous on this point.
4. From plain reading of FIR, statements of the P.Ws. Recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, prima facie an offence under section 124-A, P.P.C., is made out and the said offence is triable by a Court of Session exclusively. Needless to say that only an appeal is provided under section 25 of ATA-1997 and no remedy against an interim order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court is available, but it does not close the chapter and the hands of the superior Courts cannot be tied up, as High Courts are under legal obligation to interrupt the law and give effect to any provision of law and provide justice to the needy people by exercising their constitutional powers and these power cannot be curtailed on one or the other pretext. The Courts have the jurisdiction to grant any appropriate relief to any party by converting one type of proceedings to another type of proceeding, provided the jurisdiction of the Court remains intact. Although Section 32 of ATA-1997 has an overriding effect and only an appeal is provided under section 25 of the Act, still this Court has ample powers under chapter-2 of Self Empowerment and Governance Order, 2009 to grant relief to the parties, when the Court is of the view that dictates of justice so demand.
5. In view of the above discussion, by accepting this constitutional petition filed under Article 71(2) of (Self Empowerment and Governance Order-2009) the order/ judgment passed by Anti- Terrorism Court No,1 is set-aside and the case is transferred from Anti-Terrorism Court to the Court of learned Sessions Judge Ghizer for trial and the learned trial Court will dispose of the case on merits, without being prejudice of any observation made by us in the judgment. The record of the case be transmitted to Sessions Judge Ghizer and the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 20-4-2016. A copy of this order to be sent to Anti-Terrorism Court No,1 Gilgit for information and compliance.