AZAD QADEER vs THE STATE and 2 others
This petition challenges an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the transfer of a criminal case to an ordinary court of general jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the alleged offence, involving firing in a restaurant, constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby justifying trial by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court held that the trial court correctly retained jurisdiction. It reasoned that, unlike cases involving private vendetta in isolated areas, the incident occurred in a busy public restaurant, causing widespread fear and insecurity in the vicinity. The Court emphasized that the motivation and design behind the act were to frighten and traumatize the public, satisfying the criteria for terrorism. The key principle laid down is that when determining whether an offence falls under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the court must examine the motivation, object, and design of the act, specifically whether it created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public, rather than merely looking at the existence of prior enmity.
- Does an act of violence committed in a busy public place, creating fear and insecurity, fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Is the absence of prior enmity between parties a determinative factor in excluding an offence from the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- What criteria must be applied to determine if a criminal act constitutes terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Section 6, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 8, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 23, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
The learned counsel has called in question order of the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-IV, Lahore, dated 22-5-2007, whereby the application of the petitioner under section 23 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 was dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case arising out of F.I.R. No,1050 of 2006, dated 30-9-2006 is not covered by sections 6 and 7 of the A.T.A., 1997, therefore, it should be tried by ordinary court of general jurisdiction instead of a Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court. The trial Court while dismissing application of the petitioner observed as under:-- "It is obvious from the facts constituting the allegations of commission of the offence that the motive behind the occurrence was stemmed in an alleged act of extortion i.e. To be served with food without payment. The place of occurrence happened to be a populated area. There is allegation of making indiscriminate firing therefore, prima facie the case in hand falls within the ambit of section 23, A.T:A., 1997. Resultantly, the petition is rejected."
' The learned counsel has relied upon Mohabbat Ali and another v. State and another 2007 SCM R
142. In the said judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:-- "It is also necessary to examine that the ingredients of alleged offence has any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under sections 6, 7 and 8 thereof. Whether a particular act is an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object design or purpose behind the said Act is to be seen. It is also to be seen as to whether the said Act has created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public or any section of the public or community or in any sect. Examining the case in hand on the above touchstone, it is manifest on the face of it that the alleged offence took place because of previous enmity and private vendetta."
2. In the instant case, according to the F.I.R., and record, there is no previous enmity between the parties. The complainant is running a restaurant of fast food in different parts of the city. The occurrence took place at Allama Iqbal Town Branch, which is being run and managed by complainant's son, Muhammad Usman Atif. The accused persons in the F,I.R. No,1050 of 2006 refused to make payment of the food they had already eaten from the restaurant. On demand of payment of the bill by Muhammad Usman Atif, accused Asim and Wasif took out their mousers; Asim fired which hit to one Shahbaz, servant of the complainant. Accused Wasif also fired at the said Shahbaz; other accused Tahira Jutt and Fahhn Khan also caused injuries with butt of mousers on the head of Shahbaz. Another co-accused started firing with pump action gun in the air to cause panic and terror in the area.' Thereafter, the accused persons left the restaurant. The above facts show that the complainant party has no enmity with the accused party, the occurrence took place in a restaurant which is also an open place for the public, situated in the market of Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore.
3. We have no doubt that the above occurrence committed by the accused persons, not only caused injuries and trauma to the injured Shahbaz and complainant and his son; it created fear and sense of insecurity in the whole vicinity and area. The occurrence in the above cited judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court took place in fields of sugarcane and banana garden about 14/15 miles away from the main road. The instant occurrence took place in one of the busiest places of the Lahore City, in a restaurant, therefore, we have no doubt in our minds that facts and circumstances are totally different in the instant case to the case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The offences committed by the accused mentioned in F.I.R. Clearly show the motivation, object and design behind the occurrence was to frighten and traumatize not only to the complainant party but to the whole locality. It may also be pointed out that accused Asim had come from jail only a few days ago to the occurrence. The record of the accused persons is also present in the court which shows that all members of the family are involved in a number of criminal cases of similar nature. The impugned order is in conformity with Mohabbat Ali and another v. The State and another 2007 SCM R 142, and it does not support to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this writ petition is devoid of any substance, thus, dismissed.