2016L33 (PLP)
RABNAWAZ — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, SARGODHA and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016L33 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RABNAWAZ — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, SARGODHA and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016L33 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016L33 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016L33 (PLP) (RABNAWAZ — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, SARGODHA and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Matee Ullah for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.
- Mian Muhammad Abdullah Kalyar for Respondent No.5.
- M. Tariq Mehmood for Respondent No.6.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6, 34 & Third Sched., Para No.4(iv)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.336-A, 336-B & 34
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Hurt caused by corrosive substance, common intention
Transfer of case to court of ordinary jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court
Scope and determination
"Corrosive substances", definition of
Accused was alleged to have thrown acid on son of complainant, due to which he suffered damage on different parts of body
Anti-Terrorism Court on application of accused, transferred case to court of ordinary jurisdiction on ground that alleged incident was result of personal motive, and there was no intention on part of accused to cause panic, fear, terror and instability in any section of society
Section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 provided definition of 'terrorism', but to the extent of act or action mentioned in subsection (2), subsection (1) provided certain pre-requisites provided in sub-cls. (b) and (c) to bring use of threat of action provided in subsection (2) within meaning of 'terrorism', Subsection (3) was very relevant under which pre-requisites provided in subsection (1) were to be considered whenever use or threat of action provided in subsection (2) were to be evaluated to determine as to whether or not same fell under definition of 'terrorism' which determined the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court
Legislature had left no space for interpretation or determination with regard to certain actions by placing same in Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Under S.34 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, offence of causing hurt by means of corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of corrosive substance which was punishable under S.336-A, P.P.C., had been added in Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Explanation to S.336-A, P.P.C. clarified that corrosive substance also included every kind of acid which had corroding effect and was deleterious to human body
Paragraph No.4(iv) of Third Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, clearly postulated that Anti-Terrorism Court would, to the exclusion of any other Court, try offence relating to hurt caused by corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of corrosive substance
High Court, setting aside impugned order of Anti-Terrorism Court, dismissed application for transfer of case to court of ordinary jurisdiction
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha whereby the application moved by respondents Nos.3 to 6/accused for transfer of case F.I.R No.105/2014 dated 14.06.2014 under Section 336-B/34, P.P.C. to a court of ordinary jurisdiction has been allowed.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. We have noted that F.I.R in this case was registered against the accused/respondents Nos.3 to 6 with the allegation that they threw acid on the son of the complainant, due to which, his eyes, face, and some other parts of the body have been damaged. Admittedly, the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. comes within the purview of Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, however, the only reason prevailed with the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court for sending the matter to the court of ordinary jurisdiction was that the case in hand is an outcome of personal motive without there being any intention on the part of the accused to cause panic, fear, terror and instability in any section of the society.
4. In this regard we have observed that Section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, provides the definition of 'Terrorism ' but to the extent of act or action mentioned in subsection (2), subsection (1) provides certain pre-requisites provided in sub-clauses (b) and (c) to bring the use or threat of action provided in subsection (2) within the meaning of "terrorism" and in this respect subsection (3) is also very relevant so, the pre-requisites provided in subsection (1) are to be considered whenever use or threat of actions provided in subsection (2) are to be evaluated to the effect that whether the same fall under the definition of "terrorism" or not to finally determine the jurisdiction of the court but the legislature has left no space for interpretation or determination with regard to certain actions by placing the same in the third schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The offence of causing hurt caused by corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of corrosive substance which is punishable under Section 336-A of Pakistan Penal Code stands added in the said schedule in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act ibid. The plain reading of Section 336-A, P.P.C. provides as under:- "Whoever with the intention or knowingly causes or attempts to cause hurt by means of corrosive substance or any substance which is deleterious to human body when it is swallowed, inhaled, comes into contact or received into human body or otherwise shall be said to cause hurt by corrosive substance". In the Explanation it has been clarified that "corrosive substance" also includes every kind of acid which has a corroding effect and is deleterious to human body. Paragraph No.4 (iv) of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 clearly postulates that the Anti-Terrorism Court to the exclusion of any other court shall try the offence relating to hurt caused by corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance.
5. Therefore, by allowing this writ petition the impugned order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court being not sustainable is set aside resulting in dismissal of the application moved by the accused/respondents Nos.3 to 6 for transfer of case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a period of four months after the receipt of this order. SL/R-33/L Petition allowed.