' DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh. Dated 21-3-2000 whereby conviction and sentence awarded to the respondents by the Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Karachi in Special Case No,198 of 1999 was set aside and the case was remanded to Sessions Judge, Karachi East for trial afresh.
2. Facts of the case are that an F.I.R. Was lodged on 30-12-1998 at Police Station Jauharabad wherein unwitnessed murder of three members of family was reported by one of the members of the family i.e, Mst. Asma Nawab. During investigation police found that Mst. Asma Nawab as well was involved in the crime in addition to accused Javed Ahmed Siddiqui, Farhan Khan and Wasim Ahmed. Deceased persons namely, Nawab Ahmad, Asif Ahmad and Mst. Ibrar Khatoon were parents and brothers of Mst. Asma Nawab. After usual investigation police submitted charge-sheet in the Court of Anti-Terrorism Court No,IV, Karachi. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted all the four accused under section 392 read with section 34, P.P.C. Three of them were also convicted under section 7(1)(a) and section 34, P.P.C., and sentenced to death, rigorous imprisonment and fine.
3. Before the learned High Court, respondents raised a preliminary question about the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court whether on the allegations made by the prosecution the case fell within the meaning of section 6 of the Act. It was also pointed out that the weapons alleged by the prosecution in commission of the crime were not one mentioned in section 6(a) of the Act which include death caused by use of bombs, dynamite, other explosive or inflammable substances, or such fire-arms or other lethal weapons as may be notified or poisons or noxious gases or chemical whereas in the present case death was caused by sharp cutting weapon such as knife. It was agitated by the respondents before the Appellate Court that section 6(b) of the Act was also not attracted in the case.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned High Court accepted plea of the defence that crime committed by the respondents was not covered by section 6 of the Act.
Accordingly charge under section 7 of the Act was found untenable. On the point of jurisdiction learned High Court held that Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction and allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentences and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge, Karachi East for trial afresh.
5. Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, learned A.A.-G., referred to preamble of the Act which provides that "Whereas it is expedient to provide for the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offences and for matter connected therewith and incidental thereto;" and section 6(b) of the Act and Schedule 2(c). He also referred to State through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi v. Farman Hussain and others (PLD 1995 SC 1) and Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1445).
5-A. In Mehram Ali's case (supra) we may observe the following observations:-- ' "We may point out that this Court is not oblivious of the factum that the law and order situation has been considerably deteriorated and new types of terrorism have emerged due to tremendous progress made in the field of technology. This Court in more than one cases has held that the approach of the Court while considering criminal matters should be dynamic and it should take into consideration the surrounding situation obtaining in the country and should not lightly set aside a conviction on technical ground if the Court's conscience is satisfied that factually the convict was guilty of the offence."
6. We have given our anxious thought to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, the case-law and have also carefully gone through the impugned judgment. The manner in which three innocent persons were done to death prima facie attracts the provisions of section 6(b) of the Act read with section Schedule (2(c) of the Act. For the safe administration of criminal justice we grant leave in these petitions to consider, inter alia, the following points of law:--
(1) Whether the judgment of the Honourable High Court of Sindh at Karachi for remand of the case to the Sessions Court, Karachi East for trial afresh is in consonance with law and sustainable?
(2) Whether the accused had committed robbery from the house of deceased and caused murders which created terror and sense of fear and insecurity in the people?
(3) Whether offence under section 392, P.P.C., sections 7(1)(a) of the Act alongwith 2(c) of the Schedule attached thereto have been committed by the accused?