' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, J.---Petitioner is an accused vide F.I.R. No.315 of 1999 registered with Police Station Sadiqabad, District Rahmyar Khan on 20th July, 1999 under sections 302, 324, 353, 186, 148, 149, P.P.C. And section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. It is the allegation against him that when on the day of incident the complainant was present in the office of A.S.P. Sadiqabad alongwith Maqsood Ahmed, Mst. Parveen Akhtar, Ilyas, M. Hussain, Ghulam Hussain, Ahmed Ali, Akber, Amjad Farooq, Irshad, Ahmed Din, Muhammad Rafique and Irshad Ali in connection with investigation of F.I.R. No.65 of 1999 got registered by Ashgar Ali, party man of petitioner, he allegedly resorted to firing with .30 bore pistol at Munir Hussain, Shabbir Hussain and Tariq Pervaiz as a result whereof Constable Muhammad Ramzan sustained bullet injury on his foot because he was trying to snatch the pistol from the accused. In the meanwhile all other persons present there entered in the room alongwith the police and they attempted to overpower the petitioner but he took out a dagger and stabbed to Munir Hussain by giving him repeated blows and during the scuffle he managed to fled away alongwith his other companions. Injured died instantaneously.
2. After completion of investigation, challan against accused was submitted before Special Judge Anti-Terrorist Court No.2, Bahawalpur. In the said Court the petitioner moved an application for transfer of his case to an ordinary Court of criminal jurisdiction as the Court of Special Judge, Anti- Terrorist has no jurisdiction to try the case. Request made by him was turned down by the trial Court vide order, dated 7th September, 1999. Against his order a writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the High Court which had been dismissed vide impugned order. As such instant petition has been moved for leave to appeal.
3. On the last date of hearing we heard the learned counsel for petitioner at length and considered it proper to issue notice to Advocate-General, Punjab to assist the Court. Despite service of notice none is present on behalf of State.
4. Leaned counsel for petitioner contended that Anti-Terrorist Court can assume jurisdiction if conditions laid down under Schedule, Item (2) are fulfilled. According to him the prosecution lacks the conditions mentioned in the Schedule, therefore, petitioner has been wrongly sent up to face trial before Anti-Terrorist Court.
5. We have gone through F.I.R. No.315 dated 20-7-1999 and other material available on record and have also examined the provisions of Item (2) of Schedule appended with Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
In our opinion the contention put forth by the learned counsel in the given facts of the case require consideration keeping in view above provision of Act, 1997 as well as observations of this Court in the case of Allah Din and 18 others v. The State and another (1994 SCM R 717) wherein criteria has been laid down to determine the jurisdiction of a Special Court.
' In the instant case it would also be a moot question for examination that what is the definition of word "victim" used in Item (2) of the Schedule of Anit-Terrorism Act, 1997.
' Thus, to examine above question leave to appeal is granted and trial of the case is stayed.
However, office is directed to enlist this case as early as could be possible.