JAWAHIR KHAN Versus State
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The petitioner was booked for the offences under sections 302/324/353/454/506(2), P.P.C. read with sections 6/7 of A.T.A., 1997 vide FIR No.143/2015 dated 14-12-2015 registered at Police Station City Gilgit on the written complaint of one of the injured namely Ikramullah son of Shamsuddin.
2. After completion of investigation by J.I.T, the petitioner was sent to stand trial before the learned Judge A.T.C. No.1 Gilgit. For the purpose of convenience and ready reference the contents of FIR are reproduced as under:-
"Briefly stated that the fact of the case is that I.P Zahoor Ahmad SHO Police Station City Gilgit has registered FIR on the written application submitted by injured complainant Ikramullah son of Shamsuddin employee of Electricity Department, Sub-station Konodas Gilgit, wherein it has been stated that, "submitted that the applicant is performing his duties as helper in Electricity Department. Today on 14th December, 2015 as usual I was present in Sub-station Konodas along with Muhammad Mustaqeem Line Superintendent Shift Incharge, Shoaib-ur-Rehman helper, Muhammad Iqbal Electrician and Sher Muhammad Foreman. At about 12 O'clock at noon Jawhir Khan son of Nadir Khan resident of Muslim Colony near Sub-station, came into the Sub-Station and addressing the shift incharge Muhammad Mustaqeem asked for installation of special line for his house. Muhammad Mustaqeem replied that special line is not allowed for anyone except with the permission of the competent authority. On this Jawhir Khan got infuriated for no reason and while abusing and threatening to kill, went out of the station. Muhammad Mustaqeem Line Superintendent sensing the danger called the SHO Police Station City for urgent deployment of Police. At about 12:15 p.m., Jawahir Khan entered the sub-station by scaling the rare boundary wall of the Sub-Station and had two aimed pistols in his hands. I along with the other companions were sitting outside of the Sub-Station. Having come near us Jawahir Khan opened fire-shots on deceased Muhammad Mustaqeem with two pistols and also attempted on us by opening indiscriminate firing. Muhammad Mustaqeem succumbed to the injuries at the spot while Sher Muhammad foreman and I got injured. In the meanwhile the accused was overpowered by Muhammad Amin and four others and caught red handed with weapon of offence. The act of accused is an act of terrorism and it is requested that legal proceedings under the Anti-Terrorism Act may be initiated against the accused and he may be subjected to exemplary punishment. Injured Muhammad Mustaqeem and Sher Muhammad have been dispatched to the City Hospital for treatment."
3. The petitioner filed a transfer petition before the learned trial court which was dismissed vide order dated 24-08-2016 and being not contented with the order of trial Court, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition before this Court challenging the order/judgment of trial Court mentioned above.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the allegation contained in the FIR and facts of the case which acquired during the investigation of the case clearly shows that no case was made out involving "terrorism" therefore, a Court constituted under A.T.A., 1997 has no jurisdiction to try the case and the case be transferred to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction. The learned counsel further contended that as evident from the confessional statement of accused recorded under section 21-H of A.T.A., 1997 depicts a different story of this tragic incident. The petitioner committed the offence because of his personal vendetta and the intention to spread terror is completely lacking which is a pre-requisite to attract the provisions of A.T.A., 1997. The learned counsel further contended that no "terror" spread among any segment of the society nor the normal functions of the society were distrusted. The application of provisions of section 6(2)(I) to the case appeared to be suspect and the trial by Anti Terrorism Court would be coram non judice. The learned counsel relied on 2009 SCMR 527, PLD 2003 (Lahore) 588 and 2005 MLD 1096 in support of his contentions.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the petition with the contention that as evident from the promptly lodged FIR, the petitioner scaled over the compound wall of Power House Sub-Station Konodas, and sprayed bullets on the deceased by two pistols which proved fatal and deceased Muhammad Mustaqeem died on the spot while two other persons got injured. Per learned counsel, the action coupled with the motive brings the case within the purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the petitioner was rightly booked under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
5. The learned Dy. Advocate General adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for complainant and opposed the transfer petition.
7. We have heard both the learned counsel at a considerable length. The FIR of the instant case shows that it was lodged promptly within ten minutes of the occurrence and contains a real and natural narration of the occurrence. As evident from the FIR that the accused who himself was an employee of PWD came prepared holding two pistols in his hands and attacked his fellow beings without any rationale or justification. Action which involved serious question or intimidation of public servant in order to force them to discharge or to refrain from discharging them lawful duties or involved serious violations against a public servant was terrorism as defined under section 6(I) of A.T.A., 1997. The petitioner forced the public servant to refrain him from their lawful duties which falls within the scope and spirit of Anti-Terrorism. The object of promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act was to suppress mischief and to punish mischief mongers who destroy the peace and tranquility of the public at large, society or a section of people or community. The petitioner by his barbaric and gruesome act took the life of an innocent person and injured two other employees of PWD which created a wave of terror not only in the society but also among a section of people, public servants and the employees of PWD in particular as the staff of Sub-station Konodass failed to bow their heads before the petitioner for his illegal and unwarranted demand to install a special electricity connection at his house.
8. The case in hand is fully covered under section 6(2) of A.T.A., 1997, hence the petition is dismissed being meritless.
WA/253/GB Petition dismissed.