NADAR BURIRO Versus IMAM DIN
ORDER
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--- Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that an FIR was lodged by the private respondent against the petitioners and others, alleging therein that his brother Qaimuddin, who was running a Bakery/Sweet Shop at Thull Town, was asked by the petitioners and others to pay them Rs.500,000/-(rupees Five Lacs) as "extortion/bhatta", which he failed to pay, therefore, he was killed by them by causing him fire shot injuries at his Bakery/Sweet Shop at Thull Town. On investigation, the petitioners and others were challaned by the police before learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, the case proceeded there and in the meanwhile the petitioners by way of making an application under section 23 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, prayed for transfer of their case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction, it was dismissed by learned Incharge Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, vide his order dated 30.08.2019, which is impugned by the petitioners before this Court by means of instant constitutional petition.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that prior to the alleged incident, an incident of robbery took place at Bakery/Sweet Shop of the deceased, wherein the petitioners and others were involved without making disclosure of allegation of extortion/ bhatta. Subsequently, on account of murder of the deceased, the private respondent has involved the petitioners and others in false case by levelling false allegation of extortion/bhatta against them only to make the case to be tried by Special Court under Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, which according to him could not be tried by Special Court, under the provisions of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, on account of existing enmity between the parties over the issue of robbery. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order with transfer of the case against the petitioners to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State and others (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 61).
3. Learned Addl.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition by contending that the offence involving "extortion/bhatta" is distinct, which could only be tried by Special Court under the provisions of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.
4. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
5. In FIR of the present case, it is specifically stated by the private respondent that the petitioners and others were demanding extortion/bhatta, from his deceased brother and on account of his failure to meet with such demand, firstly, they robbed him and then committed his murder by causing him fire shot injuries at his Bakery/Sweet Shop at Thull Town. The offence of extortion/bhatta, is defined under Sub-Clause (k) of subsection (1) to Section 6 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and it is punishable under section 7(g) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, the same could only be tried by Special Court, constituted under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and not by the Court of ordinary jurisdiction. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the allegation of extortion/bhatta is a false, and it does not take mention in earlier FIR relating to robbery at Bakery/Sweet Shop of the deceased, even then such allegation being factual in its nature, could not be declared to be false by this Court summarily in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
6. Case of Ghulam Hussain and others (supra), is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, it was inter alia held by the Honourable Apex Court that the offence committed due to personal enmity or vendetta did not qualify to be labeled or characterized as terrorism. In the instant matter, there appears no enmity or vendetta between the parties leading to death of the deceased, who was firstly robbed and was done to death allegedly by the petitioners and others, on account of his failure to pay them extortion/bhatta of Rs.500,000/-.
7. Having discussed above, it could be concluded safely that no justification is advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners to make interference with impugned order by this Court by way of instant constitutional petition; it is dismissed accordingly together with other listed application.
MH/N-20/Sindh Petition dismissed.