2003 PLP 422 (MLD)

RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J.

Ahmad Bakhsh accused has challenged the jurisdiction of Special Judge of Special Court Anti Terrorism, Multan to hold the trial of the petitioner alongwith others on the sole ground that Muhammad Aslam abductee was above 18 years of age, therefore, case is triable by ordinary Court and the Anti-Terrorism Court has no jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Shafi respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner and 4 others under sections 365-A, 468, 471, 419 and 420, P.P.C. in the Court of Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, wherein he alleged that he has only one son Muhammad Aslam who is of unsound mind. On 25-7-1998 at about 7-00 p.m. respondents Nos.2 to 4 in the complaint armed with 222 rifles forcibly made his son to sit in their car and took him to unknown place in the presence of complainant. Muhammad Ramzan son of Sher Muhammad and Abdul Sattar son of Rehman. On 13-8-1998 abductee was found in precarious condition outside his house. Muhammad Aslam abductee informed the complainant that during abduction period accused forcibly, fictitiously through forgery and fraudulent means deprived him of 40 Kanals of land and got Mutation No.602 dated 10-8-1998 sanctioned in their favour. Trial Court summoned the accused who submitted an application under section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 contending that it has no jurisdiction to try them as the abductee is not a child and the case is triable by ordinary Court. Learned Special Judge dismissed the application on 18-2-2002 holding that under section 2, clause (n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the case falls within his jurisdiction. Petitioner has challenged the validity of aforesaid order in this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the abduction as defined under section 361, P.P.C. means taking or enticing any minor under fourteen years of age if a female and under sixteen years of age if a male or any person of unsound mind, out of keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind without the consent of such guardian is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. According to him Muhammad Aslam was beyond eighteen years of age, therefore, under section 2(d) of the Anti-Terrorism Act he being above the age of 18 years case is not triable by Anti-Terrorism Court.

4. Learned Assistant Advocate-General submits that the case is covered by section 2(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and is exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court. He has further submitted that clause (d) of section 2 of the Anti-Terrorism Act relates to the accused and not the abductee, therefore, petitioner's case does not go out from the jurisdiction of the Court seized of the matter.

5. Heard. Record perused. Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is a special law and the provisions contained therein override the provision of general law. Section 2(d) defines the word 'child' and relates to an accused person who has not attained age of 18 years and has no nexus with abductee whereas subsection (n) of said section defines kidnapping for ransom as conveying of any person from any place, without his consent or by force compelling or by any deceitful means enticing him to go from any place and unlawfully detaining him and demanding or attempting to demand money, pecuniary or other benefit from him or from another person, as a condition of his release. Case of the petitioner is clearly covered by section 2(n) of the Act and, as such, falls within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court.

6. Section 361, P.P.C. relates to kidnapping from lawful guardianship of a minor under 18 years of age if a male and under 16 years of age if a female or any person of unsound mind and is punishable under section 365, P.P.C., whereas the person kidnapped or abducted 9-or extorting property, valuable security etc., is punishable under section 365-A, P.P.C. with death or imprisonment for life. The complaint lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioner and his co- accused is under section 365-A, P.P.C. etc., and according to the allegation the abductee is of unsound mind. Keeping in view the allegations contained in the complaint and the legislative intention incorporated in section 2(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 we are clearly of the view that the Anti-Terrorism Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hold the trial of the accused. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./A-688/L Petition dismissed.