2016 PLP 1819 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.

Through instant criminal revision, the applicant/complainant has assailed the Order dated 05.6.2014, passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, whereby he returned the FIR to SHO Police Station Lakhi Gate with directions to send the same to the Court having jurisdiction.

2. Precisely, the prosecution story as per FIR lodged by applicant/complainant is that deceased Abdul Waheed was M.C.O. in Zarai Tarqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL), Shikarpur, and accused Piyar Ali is Clerk. On 03.6.2014, at 9.40 a.m. complainant along with his another brother Maqsood Ahmed and cousin Yasir Khan was going to his brother deceased Abdul Waheed and when they reached at the door of bank saw accused Piyar Ali coming towards car standing near the bank in which one Taj Muhammad was sitting while driver was unknown; complainant received call from phone of his brother that accused Piyar Ali has fired upon him. The complainant party tried to catch hold accused Piyar Ali but Taj Muhammad directed kalashnikov and took away Piyar Ali. The complainant party returned to bank and saw Abdul Waheed in car, who informed that after exchange of harsh words over money matter Piyar Ali has fired upon him. The complainant party took him to civil hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. After postmortem complainant lodged FIR under sections 302/34, P.P.C.

3. The SHO sent the FIR to Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, but the learned Judge returned the same to SHO with directions to send the same to the Court having jurisdiction, therefore, FIR was sent to learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Shikarpur and after completion of investigation the police submitted challan in the Court of learned 3rd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Shikarpur and subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, where applicant/ complainant filed application under Section 193, Cr.P.C. with a prayer to return the record and proceedings of the case to the concerned police for submission of challan before the Court having jurisdiction. The learned judge dismissed the application, vide Order dated 18.2.2015, observing as under:-- "Keeping in view the arguments advanced by both parties and from perusal of record it shows that firstly the FIR was submitted by police before learned Special Judge, ATC Shikarpur but learned Special Judge passed order dated 05.6.2014 declaring the case to be formal in nature and deleted sections 6/7 AT Act and returned the FIR to police to submit the FIR to concerned Magistrate because the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The complainant has not challenged that order of Special Court and case was challaned and sent by concerned Magistrate to the Court of Hon'ble Sessions Judge Shikarpur thereafter it was made over to this Court. According to law the Special Judge ATC Shikarpur has power under section 23 AT Act to transfer any special case to ordinary court but this court has no power to transfer the case from this Court to the Court of Special Judge, ATC, Shikapur, therefore, the application in hand merits no consideration, hence the same is dismissed."

4. Thereafter the applicant/comp-lainant filed instant criminal revision application after about ten months of impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the deceased was M.C.O. in the bank and incident took place inside the bank. The accused repeatedly fired upon deceased and has created terrorism amongst people present in the bank, hence the act of accused comes in the ambit of terrorism within the meaning of Sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

6. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 while refuting the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant/complainant submitted that from the face of FIR, it appears that the offence has no nexus with Sections 6 and 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The deceased and accused Piyar Ali were employees of ZTBL, Shikarpur and the incident took place after exchange of harsh words, therefore, the order passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, does not suffer from any infirmity.

7. The learned D.P.G. also adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 and supported the impugned order.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

9. Admittedly the deceased and accused Piyar Ali were the employees of ZTBL Shikarpur and both were present in the bank on date and time of incident and it is the case of prosecution that after exchange of harsh words over matter of exchange of money at the spur of moment the accused Piyar Ali allegedly fired at deceased inside the room of bank and even no firing in air or at prosecution witnesses or at public in order to create terror, sense of insecurity or destabilize the public at large is alleged against him. Thus we are of the view that the design or purpose of the offence as contemplated by section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is not attracted, hence the order passed by learned Judge Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur does not require interference by this Court.

10. It is pertinent to mention here that, through instant criminal revision the applicant/complainant has challenged the very first Order dated 05.6.2014 whereby FIR was returned to police, which too after lapse of ten months and no explanation has been given by him as to why he remained silent for about ten months. However, he has not challenged subsequent order dated 18.2.2015 passed by trial Court.

11. In view of foregoing reasons we are of the view that the impugned order passed by learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur does not suffer from any illegality, hence the instant criminal revision has no force, which is accordingly dismissed. HBT/N-18/Sindh Petition dismissed.