ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--The necessary facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the petitioner is the complainant of case F.I.R. No,77 registered at Police Station Tarkhani, District Faisalabad on 12-5-2002 for offences under sections 302/342/34, P.P.C., read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 are two of the four accused persons implicated in this case and the remaining two accused persons had earlier on been tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court which convicted and sentenced them for various offences. Upon the subsequent arrest of respondents Nos.2 and 3 the case against them was put up before the learned Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court, Faisalabad for trail but vide order dated 8-4-2002 he directed the learned Public Prosecutor to present the same before a regular Court of competent jurisdiction as the allegations contained in the F.I.R., did not involve any terrorist act contemplated by the provisions of the amended section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. That order has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court through the present revision petition.
2. In support of this petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two co-accused of respondents Nos.2 and 3 were tried by a Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and, therefore, the same case against respondents Nos.2 and 3 ought also to be tried by such a Court. He has further maintained that the allegations levelled against respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the F.I.R involved terrorism and, therefore, the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad was not justified in directing trial of the case against respondents Nos.2 and 3 to be held before a regular Court. It has lastly been argued that the victims in this case were public servants and, therefore, the trial of the case against respondents Nos.2 and 3 could only be held by a Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 as well as the learned counsel for the State have opposed this petition and have supported the impugned order.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have noticed that two co-accused of respondents Nos.2 and 3 were earlier on tried by a Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at a time when such a Court used to have jurisdiction with reference to certain scheduled offences but subsequently that schedule was done away with and the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 was amended. Through an amendment in section 6 of the said Act jurisdiction of a Court under the said Act was made determinable not with reference to any schedule of offences but with reference to the mens rea and the actus reus specified in the amended section 6.
After those amendments the actions specified in subsection (2) of section 6 of the said Act can be tried by a Court under the said Act only if they are committed with the intentions specified in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of section 6 of that Act. It has been specifically provided by section 39-B(e) of that Act that any case being tried by a Court constituted under that Act which ceased to have jurisdiction to try such a case by virtue of the amendments would transfer such a case to a regular Court of competent jurisdiction for the remaining trial. We have examined the allegations contained in the F.I.R in this case in the light of the provisions of the amended section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and have found that the acts allegedly committed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 had not been committed with any intention or mens rea specified in the said provisions and, thus, a Court constituted under that Act no longer had any jurisdiction to try the criminal casein hand.
4. Apart from what has been observed it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 1445) and Ch.Bashir Ahmad v. Naveed lqbal and 7 others (PLD 2001 SC 521) that an act of private revenge based upon a personal vendetta is not to be treated as an act of terrorism which is a species apart. In the present case the F.I.R itself mentions that the offences in questions had been committed by the culprits in the background of personal enmity between the parties and to achieve private revenge. Thus, a Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 clearly lacks jurisdiction to try respondents Nos.2 and 3.
5. Adverting to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner based upon the status of the victims of this case as public servants suffice it to observe that the said victims had not been assaulted in this case in their capacity as public servants or with an intention to deter them from performance of their official duties. Catering for a somewhat similar situation a learned Full Bench of this Court had held in the case of Muhammad Riaz v. Mian Khadim Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, etc. (2002 YLR 203) that a case of a public servant assaulted by his private enemies for satisfaction of a private vendetta and not with the object of deterring him from his official duties does riot attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and such an assault upon a public servant can be tried by a regular Court.
6. For the reasons mentioned above we have found the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad to be not open to any legitimate exception and this revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.