' Petitioner alongwith five others is facing trial in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Lahore in case F.I.R. No,395 of 2000, dated 25-5-2000 under sections 302/324/394/109/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura. Through this Constitutional petition, legality of order, dated 8-1-2002 has been challenged whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking transfer of said case to an ordinary Court as the Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1997 had no jurisdiction.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no doubt in this case allegedly eight persons were done to death by the petitioner and his co-accused but the facts of this case reveal that motive for this occurrence was old enmity between the parties and there is no evidence to show the element of terrorism to attract the provision of section 6 of Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1997 (as it was prior to the amendment). On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the act of killing eight persons in different houses in a thickly populated area was sufficient to create terror in the society and the act of the petitioner and his co-accused certainly attract the provisions of section 6 of (ibid) Act. In support of his arguments, reliance had been placed in Civil Petition No,185-I of 2002 titled Mst. Najam-un-Nisa v.
Judge, Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, decided on 29-4-2002.
3. Heard. Record perused:
4. In the above mentioned case, eight persons were done to death allegedly by the petitioner and his co-accused. The brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 25-5- 2002 at about 2-30 a.m. The complainant namely Muhammad Din son of Siraj Din alongwith Muhammad Afzaal, Khurshid Bibi, Muhammad lqbal and Mst. Ishrat Bibi was sleeping in the house of Inayat. Muhammad Maalik and Tanveer Hussain alongwith Saleem Bibi were also sleeping on their cots. Statedly, Mujahid and Khalid armed with rifles came there and started firing. Khurshid Bibi, Ishrat Bibi, Saleem Bibi, Muhammad lqbal, Muhammad Maalik and Tanveer Hussain were injured due to the said firing. Statedly only Mst. Ishrat Bibi survived whereas all the other five injured succumbed to the injuries. In the meantime, Sardar Muhammad and Allah Ditta (relatives of the complainant) reached and told the complainant that Tariq armed with kalashnikov, Muhammad Jameel and Anwar armed with rifles and Mehmood Aslam armed with .12 bore gun had killed Muhammad Arif and Abdul Ghafoor in their house and had taken away the ornaments and other articles from their house. Statedly Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Maalik also came and informed the complainant that Muhammad Arif armed with rifle, Khalid armed with gun entered into their house and had fired at Haji Ilam Din killing him at the spot. Statedly, Muhammad Shafie, the other injured, reached there and he informed the complainant that Zafar Iqbal armed with rifle, Ranjhoo armed with .12 bore gun had entered into his house and had injured him.
5. Admittedly, this occurrence took place in a thickly populated area in which eight persons were done to death in three different houses at night time when they were sleeping. This act is not of a kind which would not create terror and horror in the locality or any section of the people. Needless to mention that such crime even it is committed in the remote corner does not remain unnoticed in the area in which it is committed or even in the country on account of the print and electronic media. Their Lordships of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan while deciding a case of like nature i,e, Mst. Najam-un-Nisa v. Judge, Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, decided on 29-4-2002 has observed that the venue of the commission of crime; time of occurrence; motive which had led to the commission of crime and the fact whether said crime had or had not witnessed by the public at large are not the only factors determining the issue whether the case did or did not fall within the parameters of Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1997. The crucial question is whether the said crime had or had not the effect of striking terror or creating a sense of fear and insecurity in the people of any section of the people.
6. The circumstances of this case are sufficient to create horror and terror in the people of locality or any section of the people and these circumstances are sufficient to bring the case in hand within the jurisdiction of Special Court. Finding no force in this petition, same stands dismissed.