PCRLJ 2010

2010 P Cr (PLP)

FAWAD RASOOL — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.1, GUJRANWALA and 2others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2009-August-5
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties FAWAD RASOOL — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.1, GUJRANWALA and 2others — Respondents
Primary Law Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (FAWAD RASOOL — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.1, GUJRANWALA and 2others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Muazullah Khan Sherwani for Petitioner.
  • M.R. Sheikh, A.A.-G. and Shaukat Ali, S.-I. with record for Respondents.
  • 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that according to F.I.R. occurrence had taken place on account of some previous longstanding enmity between the parties; that there is no other sectarian element involved in the case; that the occurrence had not taken place at any congested public place, therefore, it is argued that no act of terrorism can be presumed to have been committed during the course of occurrence, therefore, case should be transferred to the ordinary Court. He has also relied upon Tariq Mahmood v. The State and others 2008 SCMR 1631 and Mohabbat Ali and another v. The State and another 2007 SCMR 142 in support of his contentions.
  • 4. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. has opposed the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 302/324/148/149/109

Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7/23

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Application filed by the petitioner for transfer of case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to the court of ordinary jurisdiction, having been dismissed, petitioner had assailed order of dismissal in constitutional petition

Occurrence had taken place on a bridge where apart from rival party, many other people were also present

Apart from three persons from the rival party two passersby lost their life, while 12 others suffered firearm injuries

Such was neither a private nor an isolated place where there was no risk for general public-Result of the occurrence itself had shown that apart from the deceased and injured passersby there must be many more who must have felt a sense of insecurity as a result of occurrence

Prima facie, it could not be presumed before recording of evidence, for the purposes of determining jurisdiction of the court that the act was not one of terrorism

In the present case, death of two passersby and injuries to 12 others, prima facie indicated that apart from them many others were also present at the time of occurrence, which must have created sense of insecurity in the general public

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner along with others is facing trial before Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No.1, Gujranwala in case F.I.R. No.201 of 2007 dated 8-6-2007 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149 and 109, P.P.C. read with sections 6/7 of A.T.A. registered at Police Station Ferozewala District Sheikhupura.

2. Petitioner filed an application under section 23 of the A.T.A., 1997 for transfer of his case from the said Court to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction, which application was dismissed vide order, dated 8-7-2009. This order is being assailed through instant constitutional petition.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that according to F.I.R. occurrence had taken place on account of some previous longstanding enmity between the parties; that there is no other sectarian element involved in the case; that the occurrence had not taken place at any congested public place, therefore, it is argued that no act of terrorism can be presumed to have been committed during the course of occurrence, therefore, case should be transferred to the ordinary Court. He has also relied upon Tariq Mahmood v. The State and others 2008 SCMR 1631 and Mohabbat Ali and another v. The State and another 2007 SCMR 142 in support of his contentions.

4. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. has opposed the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner.

5. We have considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties.

6. The occurrence had taken place on a bridge known as Ferozewala, where apart from rival party many other people were also present, as is evident from the result of occurrence i.e. apart from three persons from the rival party two passers-by lost their life, while 12 others suffered fire-arm injuries. Meaning thereby that it was neither a private nor an isolated place where there was no risk for general public. Result of the occurrence itself shows that apart from the deceased and injured passers-by there must have felt a sense of insecurity as a result of the occurrence, therefore, prima facie, it cannot be presumed at this stage before recording of evidence, for the purposes of determining jurisdiction of the Court that the act was not one of terrorism.

7. Judgment cited as 2007 SCMR 142 is distinguishable, inasmuch as, in said case the occurrence had taken place 14/15 miles away from the main road in sugarcane and banana fields, therefore, question of public having felt sense of insecurity was absent. Likewise, the other judgment is also distinguishable, inasmuch as, their Lordships in the said case observed that the site plan denies the claim of the complainant that the occurrence took place in a "Bazar" which was heavily populated. As against this in the instant case death of two passers-by and injuries to 12 C others, prima facie, indicates that apart from them many others were also present at the time of occurrence, which must have created sense of insecurity in the general public.

8. For what has been stated above, we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T. /F-80/L Petition dismissed.