2011 PLP 1 (YLR)

SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.--Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 22-10-2010, whereby the application of the present petitioner/Munir Hussain, filed under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the transfer of his case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction, has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad (Camp at District Jail, Faisalabad).

2. Briefly, the facts of the case in hand are that the present petitioner/Munir Hussain is one of the accused nominated in case F.I.R. No. 1475 of 2006, dated 31-10-2006, registered in Police Station, Sadar, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, wherein the allegation against the accused persons levelled by the complainant is that they launched a murderous attack on Haji Rana Muhammad Asghar, brother of the complainant, while he was coming back to Jaranwala after attending hearing of a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, in the company of Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Amin alias Muhammad Khan, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Rana Abdul Jabbar Khan and Muhammad Irfan, in a Land Cruiser Jeep, at Morre Chak 60/G.B, which resulted in murder of Rana Muhammad Asghar and Amin alias Muhammad Khan. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that due to the indiscriminate firing of the accused persons with their Kalashnikovs, traffic was blocked and a sense of fear was spread all around the place of occurrence. On an application moved by the complainant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad sent back the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad for its entrustment to the Anti-Terrorism Court. However, the learned Sessions Judge sent it back with a direction to return it to the concerned police for its submission before the court of competent jurisdiction. The learned ASJ, vide order dated 19-2-2010 returned the file to the police and thereafter, the same was submitted before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad. The jurisdiction of the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad was challenged by the present petitioner by filing application under section 23 of the ATA, 1997, which as aforementioned was dismissed. Hence, the instant writ petition.

3. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case in hand did not relate to the act of terrorism as the alleged incident had taken place as a result of previous enmity and there was no element of creating any sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of general public. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad has not considered the facts of the case in its true perspective and has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. The learned counsel next contended that there was no evidence available on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of an offence attracting the provision of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has opposed the instant petition, on the plea that the incident has taken place at a busy road and indiscriminate firing with Kalashnikovs by the accused persons had put the general public travelling on the said road as well as residents of the adjacent area under imminent danger to their lives and thereby created a sense of fear and insecurity. He further argued that this being an act of terrorism, the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad had rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for transfer of the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The victims of the alleged occurrence were ambushed on a road, where the accused persons resorted to indiscriminate firing with "Kalashnikovs" on the vehicle in which the complainant party was travelling. As a result of firing of the accused persons, traffic coming from both sides of the road was blocked. The incident might be the result of previous enmity between the parties, but the place of occurrence selected by the accused persons for launching a murderous attack on their opponents was not a private place. The use of Kalashnikovs for hitting the vehicle of the victims on a busy public road not only resulted in disruption of flow of traffic but also created a serious risk to safety of the public gathered on the said road. While determining the nature of an act for the purposes of attracting the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the impact of the act of the accused persons on the general public is of vital importance and not the intention of the accused. In the present case, the act of the accused/ assailants not only disturbed the normal activities of the public at large but also made them feel helpless and frightened.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the case in hand squarely falls within the definition of "terrorism" as provided in section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad had rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for sending his case to the ordinary Court. Hence, no ground is made out for setting aside the impugned order dated 22-10-2010. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-621 Petition dismisse