1. Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires and legality of the order dated 6-1-1998, passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Bahawalpur, whereby he dismissed the petition for transfer of case F.I.R. No,226 of 1997, under section 302/148/149, P.P.C., pending in his Court, to the Sessions Court.
2. 2.The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Mst. Sughran Bibi (complainant) on 7-8- 1997 got recorded F.I.R. No,226 of 1997, under section 302/148/149, P.P.C., at Police Station Saddar Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, wherein she alleged that Noor Muhammad (petitioner) and others, wjiile armed with various weapons, caused the death of her son Yasin, an employee of Pakistan Air Force, and Mst. Nusrat Bibi, the sister of Muhammad Zafar accused, due to suspected illicit relations between Mst. Nusrat Bibi and Saleem, another son of the complainant and real brother of Yasin deceased.
3. 3.The challan of the case is pending in the Court of Special Judge constituted under the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997. The petitioner sought its transfer to the ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that in view of the amendment made in the schedule of the said Act vides notification dated 13-12-1997; the said Court ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter. The amendment in the schedule is reproduced as under:-- "2. Any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), namely:-
(a) Section 302-- (i)if committed with a cannon, grenade, bomb or rocket or (ii)if the victim is a member of police, armed forces or civil armed forces or is a public servant; or (iii)if committed during, or while committing the offence of robbery or dacoity and committed after the commencement of this Act; or .
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the substituted entry No,2(a)(iii) only the offence committed after the commencement of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could be tried by the Courts established under section 13 of the said Act. He elaborated that as the offence in this case was allegedly committed on 7-8-1998, prior to the enforcement of the said Act on 20-8-1997, the special Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
4. 5.I am afraid, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is highly misconceived. A plain reading of the amended provision shows that under entry No,2 (a)(ii) the case of an alltged murder of a member of Armed Forces is exclusively triable by the Special Court. The reference in clause (iii) "after the commencement of this Act" relates to the case of commission of robbery or dacoity. It has no relevance with (i) (ii), referred above.
5. 6.In view of the above, this Constitutional petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed in limine.