This criminal petition was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of the High Court of Sindh, which directed the Investigating Officer to submit the challan of the petitioners before the Anti-Terrorism Court. The petitioners contended that the matter arose from personal enmity and lacked the requisite intent to create public insecurity or destabilize the public, thus failing to meet the criteria of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, upheld the High Court's findings that the petitioners' actions created a sense of insecurity among co-villagers. The Court clarified that for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on an Anti-Terrorism Court, the specific motive or intent behind the offence is irrelevant. Instead, the determining factor is whether the act itself was designed to create a sense of insecurity or destabilize the public. Finding no error in the impugned order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the nature of the act governs the jurisdictional application of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through this Criminal Petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 5-5-2011 passed by the learned High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,D-471 of 2010, by which it has allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application of the respondent No,1 and directed the Investigating Officer to submit challaned of the petitioners before the Antiterrorism Court.
2. It is contended by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners that the order of the learned High Court was improper and there was no material available on record, which could allow the learned, Court to confer jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court for holding trial of the petitioners before it. According to the learned Advocate Supreme Court, admittedly there was enmity between the parties and there was no intention of the petitioners to create a sense of insecurity and or destabilize public at large in order to attract the ingredients of provision of Section 6 of the Ant-Terrorism Act.
3. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court and have perused the record. The learned High Court has examined the material at length and has rightly concluded that the act of the petitioners created sense of insecurity amongst the villagers and did destabilize the public at large and, therefore, attracts the provisions of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The learned Advocate Supreme Court in support of his contentions has relied upon the Judgments reported in the case of Mohabat Ali v. The State reported in 2007 SCM R 142 and the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddiq, reported in PLD 2009 SC 11, which are distinguishable on facts. Neither the motive nor intent for commission of the offence is relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti- Terrorism Court. It is the act which is designed to create sense of insecurity and or to destabilize the public at large, which attract the provisions of section 6 of the AT Act, which in the case in hand was designed to create sense of insecurity amongst the co-villagers.
' For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error in the impugned order, which is well reasoned and accordingly this petition is dismissed. .