' Petitioner is one of the accused in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,230, dated 10-11-2001 under section 395, P.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad.
2. Through this petition, petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Judge Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which presently is seized of the trial of the afore-referred case. The grounds urged by the petitioner's learned counsel are as under:--
(i) That the petitioner is a minor and she has to be tried in terms of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 which stipulates separate trial for a child.
(ii) That even if the Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 has jurisdiction to try the instant case it can be tried only by a Court constituted under the recently amended section 14(5) of the afore-referred Act and since the Court as contemplated under this provision has not been constituted on account of the stay order granted by a learned Judge of this Court, the Anti-Terrorism Court already functioning in terms of the unamended Act cannot try the case.
3. Mr. M. Bilal Khan, the learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 are in addition and not in derogation to the existing law; that in terms of Ordinance XXXIX of 2001 (dated 15th August, 2001) even the offence committed by a child has been made triable by the Court established under the Anti-Terrorism .Act if the offence alleged falls within the ambit of the said Act and that since this Court has stayed the provisions relating to reconstitution of the Special Courts under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Courts already functioning under the Act shall continue to try and decide the cases.
4. Heard.
5. The prosecution case is that seven accused armed with fire-arms, described in the F.I.R.
Overpowered gunmen at a jewelry shop in a busy street, in the broad-daylight, robbed the owner of the shop of valuable jewelry and a cash of Rs,3,50,000 and decamped from the spot. The afore- referred story would prima facie bring the case within the ambit of section 6(1)(b) and 2(d) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which read as under:-- "6. Terrorism.--- (1) In this Act, 'Terrorism' means the use or threat of action where:
(a) ..........................................................................................................................
(b) the use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or a section of public or community or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society; or
(c) ............................................................................................................
(2) An 'action' shall fall within the meaning of subsection (1): (a).
(b)
(c)
(d) involves the doing of anything that is likely to cause death or endangers a person's life."
6. So far as the argument of the learned counsel with regard to reconstitution of Special Court is concerned, subsection (5) of section 14 of the Act PLD 2003 Federal Statute 1070 reads as under:-- "14(5). On the reconstitution of the Anti-Terrorism Courts under this section, the Anti-Terrorism Courts existing immediately before the commencement of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2002, shall stand abolished and all cases pending before such Courts shall stand transferred and assigned to reconstituted Courts having territorial jurisdiction under the direction and supervision of the Chief Justice of High' Court concerned."
7. The afore-referred provision envisages that the existing Courts shall stand abolished only on the reconstitution of the Anti-Terrorism Courts in terms of subsection (1) of the afore-referred section 14 which contemplate that an Anti-Terrorism Court shall comprise of a Judge, a Judicial Magistrate and a Military Officer from Pakistan Army not below the rank of Lt.-Col. To be nominated by the Federal Government [(in terms of subsections (l)(i)(ii)(iii) to section 14 (ibid)].
8. The afore-referred part of the amended provision has been stayed by this Court, therefore, the Special Courts which were to be reconstituted, have not been established so far. Section 14(5) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 quoted above, stipulates that the Anti-Terrorism Courts already functioning "shall stand abolished" on the "reconstitution" of the Anti-Terrorism Courts. Thus, the trial of the instant case by the Special Court already functioning is not exceptional to warrant interference.
9. Coming to the argument with regard to petitioner's minority, we note, firstly, that this point was not taken by the petitioner before the learned trial Court and, secondly, after the promulgation of the Juvenile Justice Ordinance, 2000, Ordinance XXXIX (dated 15th August, 2001) brought about significant amendments in the Anti-Terrorism Act inter alia to bring within the fold of the Act the trial of a child if the act falling within the mischief of the said Act. Section 2(d) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 defines child to be a person below eighteen years of age. Section 21-C(4) and section 21- C(7)(e) of the Act stipulate various situations when act of a child may amount to an offence triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The provisions read as under:- "21-C(4). A child commits an offence if he provides, without valid authorization from the competent authority, any instruction or training, or if he receives such unauthorized instruction or training or invites another, specifically or generally to receive such unauthorized instruction or training in the making or use of
(a) fire-arms;
(b) explosives; or
(c) chemical, biological, and other weapons.
"21-C(71(e). (a) ........................................................
(b) ............................................................................
(c) ............................................................................
(d) .........................................................................................................................
(e) A child commits an offence if he provides, generally or specifically, any instruction or training in acts of terrorism, and on conviction, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not more than five years."
10. For what Ls been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.