AHMER RAZI Versus THE STATE
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which dismissed the applicant's request to transfer a special case to the Court of Sessions. The core legal question was whether the mere possession of explosive substances, without evidence of their use or a nexus to the objects defined in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, constitutes an offence triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The High Court held that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the offences enumerated in section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are not triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court per se unless they possess a clear nexus with the purpose and objects defined in section 6(1) of the same Act. Since the prosecution failed to allege that the explosive substances were used or intended for use in a manner that creates terror or falls under the specific definitions of terrorism, the case did not fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and transferred the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
- Does the mere possession of explosive substances, without evidence of their use to create terror, fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Are offences enumerated in section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court if they lack a nexus to the objects defined in section 6(1)?
- Can an Anti-Terrorism Court retain jurisdiction over a case where the alleged offence does not meet the statutory definition of terrorism?
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 6, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 6(1), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 6(2), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 6(2)(ee), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 6(3), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
##' TS##This criminal revision application under sections 435/439, Cr.P.C. Arises out of the order dated 28-6-2005 whereby the learned Judge, A.T.C., Hyderabad and Mirpur Khas Division has dismissed the A application of applicant Ahmer Razi, for transfer of Special Case No,17 of .2005 to the Court of Sessions on the ground that the alleged offence was not triable by the Court under the A.T. Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997.
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 F.I.R. No,69 . Of 2005 at Police Station Market against the accused including the present applicant.
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 subsection (2) of section 6 of 1997 Act will not be liable under the said Act, unless, the ingredients of subsection (1) of section 6 (ibid) are attracted. The trial Court therefore, did not apply its mind properly before passing the impugned order, relying on the provisions of subsection (3) which in facts is subject to the provisions of subsection (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.
Mr. Habib Ahmed A.A.-G. Has 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 Session for trial.
We have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and examined the provisions of 1997 Act and found that the case did not fall within the ambit of section 6 (ibid) as there was no allegation of use of threat of action as provided thereunder. The actions as enumerated under subsection (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 subsection (2) has any nexus with the purpose and object as defined under subsection (1) of section 6 of 1997 Act. Accordingly, the revision application is admitted and allowed. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside.
The case in question is transferred to the concerned Court of. Session for disposal according to law.