AHMED RAZI vs STATE
This criminal revision application arises out of an order passed by the Judge of the Anti-Terrorism Court, dismissing the applicant's application for the transfer of a special case to the Court of Sessions. The core legal question concerns whether the mere possession of an explosive substance, without any nexus to the use or threat of action defined under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, falls within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. The High Court held that the actions enumerated under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, only become cognizable by an Anti-Terrorism Court if they have a nexus with the purpose and object defined under sub-section (1) of Section 6. The court consequently set aside the impugned order and ordered the transfer of the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The key principle laid down is that offences under penal laws do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Courts merely because they involve items like explosives, unless the statutory ingredients and nexus of terrorism as defined in the governing statute are fully attracted.
- Does the mere possession of an explosive substance without use or threat fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Are offences enumerated under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court without satisfying the ingredients of sub-section (1)?
- Whether a case improperly entertained by an Anti-Terrorism Court should be transferred to the Court of Sessions?
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 6, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
1. Atta-ur-Rehman, J.--This Criminal Revision Application u/S. 435/439 Cr.P.C. arises out of the order dated 28.6.2005 whereby the learned Judge ATC, Hyderabad and Mirpur Khas division, has dismissed the application of applicant Ahmer Razi, for transfer of Special Case No, 17/05 to the Court of Sessions on the ground that the alleged offence was not triable by the Court under the AT Act, 1997 (1997 Act).
2. According to the prosecution, the police allegedly recovered some explosive substance from the possession of the accused persons, who were about to shift the same to some other place from the scene of recovery. The police took the contraband in their custody and registered FIR No, 69/05 at P.S. Market against the accused including the present applicant.
3. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the offence so committed does not fall within the ambit of 1997 Act, as mere possession of explosive substance is not included in the definition of Section 6 thereof. It is urged that Section 6 (2) (ee) ibid provides that where it involves use of explosive by any device including bomb blast, it would attract the provisions of 1997 Act. It is contended that the mere actions defined in sub-section (2) of Section 6 of 1997 Act will not be liable under the said act, unless the ingredients of sub-section (1) of Section 6 ibid are attracted.
4. The trial Court therefore did not apply its mind properly before passing the impugned order relying on the provisions of sub-section (3) which in facts is subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of 1997 Act and not applicable to the facts of the present case as no allegation of similar nature is made in the case against the present applicant.
5. Mr. Habib Ahmed AAG has no cavil to the above proposition and stated that the A.T. Court had no jurisdiction to try the case as the same did not fall within the scope of 1997, Act. He therefore conceded to the transfer of the case to the Court of sessions for trial.
6. We have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and examined the provisions of 1997 Act and found that the ease did not fall within the ambit of Section 6 ibid as there was no allegation of use or threat of action as provided there under. The actions as numerated under sub-section (2) to Section 6 are offences under penal code itself such offences per se are not triable by the A.T. Court. Such actions would only be cognizable by A.T. Court if any of the enumerated offences under sub-section (2) has any nexus with the purpose and object as defiped under sub-section (1) of action 6 of 1997 Act. Accordingly, the revision application is admitted and al allowed. Consequently the impugned order is set aside.
7. The case in question is transferred to the concerned Court of is for disposal according to law.