This is a Constitutional petition moved by Muhammad Ramzan petitioner presently confined in New Central Jail, Multan against respondent No,1 ft r a direction to include the remissions gruted from time to time since after the date of his arrest and to release him if he has already served out the entire sentence.
2. Some relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of the abovementioned petition are that the petitioner along with his co-accused after conviction and sentence passed by Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, -1975 at Multan vide judgment, dated 6-5-1996, was serving out his sentence and when his Criminal Appeal No,151 of 1996 came up for final hearing on 10-5-2001 on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant order was passed by this Court which reads as under:- "According to the learned counsel for the appellants Rafi and Ali Muhammad, appellants Nos.2 and 3, respectively, have already served out their sentences' and they have been released from Jail and, thus, to their extent this appeal has become infructuous. The learned counsel for appellant has further stated that Muhammad Ramzan, appellant No,1 is about to serve out his sentence if he is allowed the permissible remissions and, therefore, he does not press this appeal to his extent.
This appeal is, therefore, dismissed to the extent of appellant No,1 as having not been pressed and to the extent of appellants Nos.2 and 3 as having become infructuous."
3. Thereafter, Criminal Miscellaneous 281/M of 2001 was filed with this contention that respondent No,1 has failed to include the permissible remission in the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner but since it was not maintainable, therefore, it was dismissed as withdrawn vide order, dated 21-5-2001, have this write petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel. Rana Urfan, A.S.P. New Central Jail Multan was also in attendance the relevant record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the petitioner's case does not fall within any of the categories wherein the permissible remission can be withheld because the facts and circumstances of this case have no nexus with the object mentioned in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 simply for the reason that in the instant case the offence was committed on the basis of personal enmity as it reflects from the F.I.R. Lodged by the complainant, therefore, by refusing to grant permissible remissions, respondent No,1 has violated the judgment passed by the superior Courts in "Muhammad Ramzan v. Superintendent (Writ Petition No,1037 of 2001)- and Haji Hamad v. Superintendent of New Central Jail Mullah etc. " (Writ Petition No,2434 of 2001.) and our Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1998 SC 1445).
6. While in the parawise comments sent by respondent No,1 it is submitted that during the years of confinement various remissions were granted by the different authorities which were subject to this condition that the convict is not convicted under charges of espionage, subversion, anti-State activities, gang rape, terrorism, dacoities and those undergoing sentences under Foreigners Act, 1946.
7. The perusal of the judgment passed by my learned brother Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, J. In Writ Petition No,1037 of 2001 would reveal that after relying on the dictim as laid down in case of "Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 1445) observed that if any offence is committed as a result of personal enmity certain offences will have no nexus with the provisions of sections 6, 7 and 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. His Lordship was also of the opinion that the weapon, its use and the act resulting in terrorism are the three constituents that will bring the offender within the mischief of terrorism and where anyone of the three ingredients is lacking the matter come out of the jurisdiction of the special Court and will not fall within the definition of terrorism. While relying on this judgment it should be observed that each case should be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances and if basically the offence committed was result of personal enmity and it did not strike, gather or created a sense of fear and insecurity or in other words it has no nexus with the object as given in sections 6, 7 and 8 then the permitted remissions cannot be refused.
8. Now here in the instant case as reflects from the judgment passed by the learned lower Court that the incident took place on the basis of this motive that some time earlier a quarrel had taken place between Shabbir Ahmad, brother-in-law of the complainant, and Muhammad Ashraf accused over a passage but a compromise had taken place. Me4ning thereby the incident was confined to personal enmity. Now as far as the incident is concerned it was alleged that the present petitioner was armed with pistol .30 bore while his co-accused were also armed with fire- arms; that the incident took place at 8-30 p.m. When the complainant party after coming out from the house were sitting in the car and that the accused were identified in the light of electric bulb.
Meaning thereby the incident was confined to both the parties and at night time the incident may have not created a sense of fear and insecurity in the people. Therefore, the alleged incident constituting an offence had no nexus with object as given in sections 6, 7 and 8 of Anti-terrorism Act and that mere trial by the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act would not be sufficient to deprive the petitioner from the remissions granted by the competent Authorities.
' In view of the above discussion respondent No,1 is directed to grant permissible remissions to the petitioner, in compliance of order, dated 10-5-2001, passed by this Court.