NADEEM SHAH Versus State
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- This is a petition under section 526, Cr.P.C. read with section 23-A, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, hereunder referred as ATA, whereby, petitioners have sought transfer of the main case from the court of Anti-Terrorism Gilgit to ordinary court.
2. Police of Police Station Basin chalked FIR No.61/2015 and indicted petitioners for the offences of sections 4/5 of Explosive Act, section 13 of Arms Ordinance, section 188, P.P.C. and sections 6/7 of ATA. After chalking FIR, police completed investigation and submitted the charge sheet/challan in the court of Anti-Terrorism Gilgit for trial of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved from the same act of prosecution, petitioners have filed this petition. Previously, petitioners admittedly moved similar petition (Criminal Misc. No.37/2016) in the court of Anti-Terrorism Gilgit.
3. We have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by counsel for parties. The question debated before us is, whether the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners amounted to terrorism, defined in the ATA or not? All the offences leveled against petitioners are admittedly triable by ordinary courts but offences of sections 6/7, A.T.A. are not triable by ordinary courts. So, we had to hear the parties on the question, whether section 6/7, A.T.A. attracts in the circumstances of the case or not? At this stage of the case, the FIR is a very important document which clearly shows that the occurrence is of an ordinary nature and police concerned have recovered a .30 bore pistol from one of the petitioners and a very negligible quantity of ordinary explosive material. In this connection, there is neither any material, whatsoever, showing any attempt on the part of petitioners for using the weapon of offence or explosive, allegedly recovered from petitioners for any purpose of terrorism, nor there is prima facie evidence showing any attempt on the part of petitioners to use the explosive allegedly recovered from the petitioners for any act of terrorism. At this stage of the case, the only evidence, available on file against the petitioners, is mere recovery of weapon of offence and the material of explosive, normally used in developing lands etc.
4. So, we are of the view that the case in hand is triable by an ordinary court and not by the court of Anti-Terrorism Gilgit. We have painfully noted that police concerned have malafidely submitted the charge sheet/challan in the court of Anti-Terrorism and the court of Anti-Terrorism, through his order dated 31-05-2016, wrongly dismissed a similar petition. In our humble opinion, it is very important that ordinary courts are the most suitable forums for hearing and trying ordinary cases. Anti-Terrorism Court is a special court and is meant to try only special cases, involving the offences of terrorism. Giving colour of terrorism to every case is clear display of mala fides on the part of police. This trend shows incompetency of police and at the same time displays mala fides on the part of police. We have further noted that there are a number of such cases, wherein police concerned is repeatedly displaying its poorest and worst kind of worth. This kind of trend is instrumental of increasing distrust regarding the style of submission of challans by the police concerned. We direct office for sending copy of this order to D.I.G. Investigation for distribution of the same among all concerned, including the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court Gilgit.
5. In the sequel of above circumstances, we allow this petition, set aside order dated 31-05-2016 of the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit, passed in Criminal Misc. No.37/2016. We direct for sending the challan of FIR No.61/2015 of Police Station Basin to ordinary courts for trial. We further direct office for issuing a letter with copy of this order to the court of Anti-Terrorism Gilgit with specific direction of scrutinizing afresh all pending cases in the said court, with the aim of sending cases of ordinary offences to the ordinary courts immediately. The said letter should contain specific direction to the said court that the said court is only meant for trying cases involving terrorism, very clearly defined in the ATA. Petition allowed. This file be consigned to record.
HBT/197/GB Petition allowed.