ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---Through this appeal under section 25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, judgment dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha in case FIR No. 08 dated 10.09.2020 registered under sections 11-N, 11-H(1-2-3), 11-J of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station CTD. District Sargodha, has been challenged whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Muhammad Ibrahim.
Under section 11-F(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to undergo six months' S.I with a fine in sum of Rs. 50000/- (fifty thousand), in default whereof accused shall further undergo two months' S.I.
2) Under section 11-H(2) read with section 11-N of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to undergo five years'
R.I with fine amounting to Rs. 100000/- (one lac), in default whereof, he shall further undergo three months' S.I.
3) The sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused for both the offences shall run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall also be available to him.
Ubaid-ur-Rehman Under section 11-H(3) read with section 11-N of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to undergo five years' R.I with fine amounting to Rs. 100000/- (one lac), in default whereof, he shall further undergo three months' S.I.
Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. shall also be available to him.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case against the appellants as narrated by Aamir Iqbal Corporal No. 1012 (PW-4) in complaint (Exh.PA) is that on 11.06.2020 he along with other officials in connection with arrest of proclaimed offenders of defunct organization were present at Sargodha More, Mianwali, where he received a spy information that a person who posed himself to be a mujahid of "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan" (TTP), a banned organization, was present at Head Pakka Pul Nehar, inducing/inciting the people in the name of Jahad, distributing the pamphlets of the banned organization "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan" (TTP) and raising funds for the organization, could be arrested, if raided. Upon this information, the police party reached at the stated place and apprehended the appellants. The appellant/Muhammad Ibrahim, got recovered 136 pamphlets, one used subscription book, two unused subscription books of the aforesaid banned organization, a blue colour ball point and cash of Rs. 45,860/- whereas a receipt No. 540 was recovered from the appellant/Ubaid-ur-Rehman, which he obtained after donating Rs. 1000/- for banned organization from appellant/Muhammad Ibrahim, besides one pamphlet and cash of Rs. 15,940/-. The articles recovered from the appellants were taken into custody vide recovery memos (Exh.PF) and (Exh.PG).
The complainant drafted the complaint (EXh.PA) and sent the same to Police Station through Muhammad Shoaib, 13/C.P.C., for registration of formal FIR whereafter the FIR (Exh.PA/1) was registered.
3. After completion of investigation, challan against the appellants was submitted before the trial court. The charge was framed on 09.11.2020 to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced eight (8) prosecution witnesses, namely, Mazhar Abbas, ASI (PW-1), Muhammad Asghar, 64/CP (PW-2), Abdul Basit, 424/CP (PW-3), Aamir Iqbal, 1012/CP (PW-4), Sher Muhammad, ASI (PW-5), Muhammad Aktar, retired ASI (PW-6), Muhammad Imran Ashraf, Judicial Magistrate (PW-7) and Muhammad Ashraf, Inspector (PW-8) and by tendering the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Exh.PN) and giving up Nasir Shaheen, 10/CP, closed the evidence.
Thereafter, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he professed his innocence and denied all the allegations levelled against him. The appellants did not opt to depose within the scope of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In reply to the questions as to why this case against them and why the PWs have deposed against them, they replied as under:- Muhammad Ibrahim/Appellant.
No such occurrence has even taken place while a false story regarding recovery and arrest proceedings was concocted by CTD officials while sitting at CTD office. Nothing was recovered from my possession and a fake recovery has been planted upon me by the CTD officials to strengthen the prosecution's case on the asking of high ups. I have no nexus with any banned organization. My signatures on the receipts were forcibly obtained while sitting at the police station of CTD."
Ubaid-ur-Rehman/Appellant.
"No such occurrence has even taken place while a false story regarding recovery and arrest proceedings was concocted by CTD officials while sitting at CTD office. Nothing was recovered from my possession and a fake to strengthen the prosecution's case on the asking of high ups. I have no nexus with any banned organization."
4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court pronounced its verdict against the appellant and awarded him punishment as aforementioned.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Aamir Iqbal, 1012/CP (PW-4) is the complainant of the FIR and according to him he received an information that appellant belonging to banned organization; i.e. "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan"
(TTP) was present at Head Pakka Pul Nehar and instigating the people for Jahad, collecting funds and distributing pamphlets of the above banned organization. At 09:40 a.m. the police official secretly parked their vehicle behind the shop and in their view appellant No.2/Ubaid-ur-Rehman, handed over to him Rs. 1000/- and obtained a receipt No 540 and also received pamphlet of the said organization. Consequently, both were arrested red handed and the appellant/Muhammad Ibrahim, got recovered 6 pamphlets (P-1 to P-6) of the banned organization from his right hand from a subscription book (P-7) and ball point. The issued receipts were from leaf Nos. 501 to 540 while 60 receipts were intact.
Every issued receipt had signatures of appellant/Muhammad Ibrahim, on it while name of the donors was mentioned on all the issued receipts. The pamphlets (P-10) to (P-130) and two new subscription books, (P-11 and P-12) were also recovered and the sum of Rs. 45,860/- were also recovered from the right pocket of his shirt. In cross-examination, he admitted that it was a busiest place being MM Road near Mianwali and that 3/4 persons were also present near him at the time of his arrest but none of them had become a witness. According to this witness, they viewed the whole occurrence behind the shelter of the shop for two minutes. He further admitted that no card of the membership of (TTP) was recovered from the possession of the appellant/Muhammad Ibrahim, and that recovered pamphlets are without the name or photocopies of head of TTP. He also admitted that on the said pamphlets no designation of the appellant/Muhammad Ibrahim, was mentioned. PW-5/ Muhammad Akhtar, retired ASI, is the other witness who also corroborated material facts with Aamir lqbal, 1012/CP (PW-4). PW-8/Muhammad Ashraf, Inspector, CTD/I.O. interrogated both the appellants and received their CNIC numbers. He submitted applications to different banks for receiving the account of the said appellants but he could not trace out any account number. The notification of the banned organization (Exh.PE) was received by him but he has not been able to interrogate the person to whom the funds used to be transferred by the appellant/ Muhammad Ibrahim.
7. Under section 11-H(2)(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 a person who received money or other property with an intention or reasonable cause to suspect that it be used for the purposes of terrorism or by terrorist organization concerned in terrorism will be convicted and sentenced under section 11-N of the Act ibid for a term not less than 5 years and if a person professes to belong to a proscribed organization will be sentenced for imprisonment not exceeding 6 months. Likewise, under section 1141(3) if a person provides money or other property for the purposes of terrorism or to a terrorist organization will be punished under section 11-N for a term not less than 5 years and fine not exceeding 25 million rupees.
8. P-14 is the receipt No. 540 of Rs. 1000/- recovered from the appellant No.2/Ubaid-ur-Rehman and P-7 are leaf heads recovered from the appellant No. 1/Muhammad Ibrahim, including that of receipt No. 540. It was a leaf head of the said corresponding receipt duly singed by appellant/Muhammad Ibrahim. As per PW/7 Muhammad Imran Ashraf, Judicial Magistrate, the signatures of the appellant/Muhammad Ibrahim, were duly verified with the obtained specimen signatures vide forensic report (Exh.PN).
9. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that no other donors were arrested; no person to whom the funds were transferred was arrested; no membership card of the proscribed organization was recovered from the possession of the appellants, are the arguments relating to the cause and effect of the occurrence but under the provisions of sections 11-F and 11-H of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 mere receiving and donating of money as donation for any proscribed organization with a likelihood that it may be used for terrorism has been made punishable. The writing of the appellant/Muhammad Ibrahim, as sated is proved through handwriting expert's report (Exh.PN). No mala fide of the police witnesses were even alleged to cause aspersion to their credibility. The display of different heads on the pamphlet was not essential as the fact remains that "Threek-e-Taliban Pakistan" (TTP), is a defunct and proscribed organization which has caused damage not only to the State institutions and targeted the State high functionaries but also had intensified the wave of terrorism in the past which would not have been possible without the financial support. Inciting public to raise funds for Jahad is obviously not allowed to individuals in an Islamic State as this may be considered as "Baghawat". At the most it may be a job of the State to collect national funds for a declared war, if essential, which cannot be raised privately by any organization. The prosecution, therefore, has proved the case against the appellants on the basis of direct evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The argument that appellants were already in police custody and they were previous non-convict might have persuaded this court for a lesser sentence but under section 11-N of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 five years is the minimum sentence which can be awarded after the proof of section 11-H of the Act ibid, hence not legally permissible.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal has been found meritless and is, therefore, dismissed.