' Asjad Javaid Ghural, J. Through this Constitutional petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., petitioner Muhammad Majid has challenged the varies of order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I Multan, whereby the learned Special Judge has transferred the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts of the care are that the petitioner got lodged a case FIR No, 132/2015 dated 19.04.2015 in respect of offences under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 404, 337-F(vi), 411, PPC & 7-ATA, 1997 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Saddar District Lodhran , alleging therein that the property of the sister of complainant Mst. Kousar Bibi is situated in Mouza Kamal Pur Jatyal. On 19.04.2015, the complainant along with her sister, his nephew namely Asghar Hasnain alias Raju present in their field to look after their wheat crops. In the meanwhile, eight nominated accused namely, Tasadaq Hussan, Khizer Hussain Shah, Sabir, Luqman, Mehran, alias Keemi, Nazir Ahmed, Afzal, Tariq and eight unknown accused persons armed with fire-arm weapons entered into the fields of the complainant and started harvesting the wheat crop of the complainant. On resistance Khizar Shah accused made fire shot which hit at the left shoulder and neck of Asghar Hasnain alias Raju. On seeing the occurrence Ali Shehzad, Shehbaz, Jam Munir were attracted at the place of occurrence upon which Tasadaq Hussain accused made a fire, which landed at left thigh and right leg of Ali Shehzad. Mst. Kausar Bibi also sustained injuries at the hands of Luqman alias Chotu accused. Ali Shehzad and Asghar Husnain alias Raju succumbed to the injuries at the spot, whereas Muhammad Afzal from the accused side also sustained injuries and died at the spot. After hearing the firing in the vicinity sense of fear and insecurity created in the general public. Hence, this case was registered.
3. After completion of investigation the challan was submitted before the learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court Multan, by the Investigating Officer and challan in cross-version had also been submitted in the said Court, where an application of behalf of the accused persons of FIR was preferred before the Trial Court under Section 23 of the Act ibid for transfer of above said case into the Court of ordinary jurisdiction. Ground urged that as no such provision of Anti-Terrorism Court was attracted in this case which could bring the case under the ambit of any of the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The said application was accepted, while exercising of powers under Section 23 of the Act ibid. Both the challans of FIR and that of the cross-version were sent to the District Public Prosecutor Ledhran for its submission to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction ride impugned order dated 17.12.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that it was a highhandedness of the accused party of the FIR; that they were sixteen in numbers and had made indiscriminate firing after having entered into the land of the complainant; that they had tried to forcibly cut the wheat crop by means of harvester and on resistance, they committed the murder of two innocent persons and also caused injuries to Kausar Bibi sister of the complainant. Though one of the accused persons had also been murdered at the place of occurrence but that was due to firing of his own companions. It is further contended that from the day one the FIR was lodged under Section 7-ATA along with other enabling provisions of Pakistan Penal Code, the challan was also submitted in said Sections and to transfer the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction is without any force. Due to firing of accused persons sense of insecurity in the general public had been created especially the persons residing in the vicinity. It was a fit case of terrorism as defined under Section 6 of the Act ibid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case titled "Mirza Shaukat Bag vs. Shahid Jamil" PLD 2005 S.0 530.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have argued that the Trial Court has rightly exercised his powers vested under Section 23 of the Act ibid and transmitted the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction; that the place of occurrence was an open area and no residence near the place of occurrence has been shown in the site-plan; that the village abadi and main road was at least eight to ten kilometers away from the place of occurrence and the occurrence has taken place due to land dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the accused claimed to be their own land where the instant occurrence has taken place. Learned Law Officer strongly supported the impugned order while placing reliance on the case titled "Khuda-E-Noor vs. The State" (PLD 2016 S.0 195).
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.
7. It is an admitted fact that the occurrence had taken place due to personal enmity between the parties and the place of occurrence was an open area where no residential house was found in all the four sides. The Abadi Deh and main road is at least eight to ten kilometers away from the place of occurrence. It was a cross firing between two rival groups, where two persons have allegedly been murdered from the petitioner's side and one from the respondents. Police came at the spot who secured one empty of 30-bore pistol and three of .12-bore gun from the place of occurrence and during the course of investigation some of the nominated accused had been found not involved in the alleged occurrence. From the facts and circumstances of the case the provision as contained in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 cannot be incorporated in the alleged occurrence. The words "designed to" create a sense of fear and insecurity in the mind of the general public can only be adjudged by taking in view the impact of the alleged offence and manner of the commission of alleged offence. The Anti-Terrorism Court Act was brought into force for the prevention and elimination of terrorism, sectarian violence and for expeditious dispensation of justice in a heinous offences as stipulated in the Act itself.
8. The specific motive intent for commission of the offence is quite relevant conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court. The Act committed must be designed to create sense of insecurity and to destabilize the public at large as envisaged under Section 6 of the Act ibid but in the case in hand no such sense of insecurity had been created to destabilize the general public, the same was allegedly under personal vendetta and enmity on land dispute which resulted the alleged occurrence. The place where this occurrence had taken place and the reasons behind the occurrence constrained us not to interfere in the order impugned. We do not find any illegality strong irregularity or perversity in the impugned order which is unexceptional and 'do not warrant any interference, therefore, the petition in hand is dismissed without having any substance.