Crl. Misc. No.4/2019 This application for restoration of Crimina l Misc. No.3/2019 is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. Let the said application be taken up for hearing.
Crl. Misc. No.3/2019
2. This application for restoration of main petition is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. Let the main case be taken up for hearing.
Crl. Revision No.25867/2019
3. Through this criminal revision under section 435, Cr.P.C., the State has challenged the vires of order dated 23.05.2018 passed by the learned Judg e, Anti-T errorism Court, Faisalabad whereby on receiving report under section 171, Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.41 dated 27.08.2017, in respect of offences under sections 324, 224, 353 and 186, P.P.C., section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 learned Judge, Anti-T errorism Court proceeded to transfer the case to the Special Court established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for trial.
4. The concise facts of the case are that the petitioner/State got lodged the aforementioned case against respondents No.2 and others with the allegation that on 27.08.2017 at about 06:00 p.m., on a tip-of f, the police party intercepted one Tasawar Rua Shah, who was carrying narcotic substances. In order to save himself, the said accused took out his pistol and started firing at the police party resulting into fire arm injury to Muhammad Shoaib, constable and succeeded to flee away . After completion of investigation, the prosecution prepared two separate challans, one in offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the second in offences under sections 324, 353, 186, 224,' 337-F(vi), P.P.C., section 13 of the Punjab Arms Ordinance (Ordinance XX of 1965) and section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997. The later was submitted before the learned Judge, Anti-T errorism Act, 1997, Faisalabad, who after hearing preliminary arguments, transferred the case to the Court where the earlier challan was submitted vide impugned order dated 23.05.2018. The petitioner , being complainant, felt aggrieved and filed this revision petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record with their able assistance.
6. The question which requires determina tion by this Court is that whether the alleged act of the private respondent and his co-accused for launching murderous assault upon the police party , who had intercepted and recovered narcotic substance from him was accompanied by a "design" or "purpose" within the ambit of subsection (1)(b) and
(c) of section 6 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 in order to attract any of the categories specified in subsection (2) thereof or not. Though the allegation was serious one yet it was not accompanied the design of creating the sense of fear and terrorism. The theme for insurgence of the provisions was specifically mentioned as an act designed to coerce, intimidate or overawe the government or the public or section of the public to create the sense of insecurity , fear and panic in the society . In the case in hand, the alleged act of the accused was the result of his attempt to save himself from the arrest, which does not fall within the categories specified under subsection (2) of section 6 of the Act ibid. To exercise the jurisdiction under the Act ibid, "design" or "purpose' behind the action coupled with mens rea to constitute the offence of terrorism is sine qua non, which has rightly been attended to by the. learned Court below . Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is no iota of doubt in our mind to hold that the allegations levelled against respondent No.2 did not attract the jurisdiction of Anti- Terrorism Court. Upon our own independent evaluation of the material available on record, we have no manner of doubt in our mind that the order impugne d does not suffer from illegality , perversity or any jurisdictional defect to warrant interference by this court.
In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is without any merit, the same stands, dismissed in limine .