' The petitioner is being tried by a Special Court constituted under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, on the allegation that on 2-12-75 at noon time he together with some others robbed the United Bank, Samanabad, Lahore. The offence with which he. Has been charged falls under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code. According to the prosecution at the time of committing the offence two of the robbers were armed with sten-guns and that they employed these weapons to overawe the Bank staff.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of his case and that he is entitled to have himself tried by an ordinary criminal Court. It may be mentioned that section 4 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 constitutes Special Courts for the trial of certain offences specified in the Schedule to the Act. The jurisdiction vested in the Special Court is of exclusive nature. In the said Schedule, under Item (a)
(iii), the offence under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code has also been included subject to the rider that during the course of the commission of the offence a cannon, grenade, bomb, rocket or an arm of a prohibited bore should have been used. Admittedly a sten gun is an arm of prohibited bore.
3. There can be no doubt that the procedure to be followed by Special Court in the trial of cases is much more stringent than that followed by the ordinary criminal Court and works to the great disadvantage of the ccused. I am therefore, in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the Act with regard to the jurisdiction of the Special Court should be strictly construed and that, in case there is an ambiguity, it should be resolved in favour of the accused. But I am unabl to accept his further contention that a stem gun cannot be said to have been used in the commission of the offence unless it has been actually fired. A stem gun is a deadly and fearsome looking weapon and its very presence is likely to induce complete submissiveness in the victim even though it may not have been actually fired. It is true that the prosecution has not alleged that at the time of raiding the Bank the petitioner and his companions had not actually fired the stem guns, but then it has taken up the position that it was the fear of the stem guns which compelled the bank employees to quietly surrender B the cash and which later discouraged them from pursuing the culprits. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention that the stem guns were not used in the course of the commission of the robbery. Thus the case of the petitioner does appear to fall under item (a) (iii) of the Schedule.
4. In the circumstances I find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with costs.
Petition dismissed.