MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.I, LAHORE and anothers
This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's application to transfer a criminal case to an ordinary court. The petitioner, accused of multiple murders, argued that the incident stemmed from personal enmity and lacked the element of terrorism required under the Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the mass killing of eight individuals in a thickly populated area, despite a motive of personal enmity, constituted an act of terrorism falling within the jurisdiction of the Special Court. The Court held that the venue, time, and motive are not the sole determinants of terrorism. Instead, the crucial test is whether the crime creates terror, horror, or a sense of insecurity among the public or a section thereof. Given the scale and nature of the incident—killing eight people in three different houses at night—the Court concluded that the act inherently created such terror, thereby affirming the Special Court's jurisdiction. The petition was consequently dismissed.
- Does the existence of personal enmity between parties automatically exclude a criminal act from the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
- What is the primary test for determining whether a crime falls within the scope of the Anti-Terrorist Activities Act 1997?
- Are factors like the venue, time, and motive of a crime the sole determinants for establishing jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorist Activities Act 1997?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 6, Anti-Terrorist Activities Act 1997
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorist Activities Act 1997
ORDER
' Petitioner alongwith five others is facing trial in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,1, Lahore in case F.I.R. No,395 of 2000, dated 25-5-2000 under sections 302/324/394/109/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1997 registered at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura. Through this Constitutional petition, legality of order, dated 8-1-2002 has been challenged whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking transfer of said case to an ordinary Court as the Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1997 had no jurisdiction.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no doubt in this case allegedly eight persons were done to death by the petitioner and his co-accused but the facts of this case reveal that motive for this occurrence was old enmity between the parties and there is no evidence to show the element of terrorism to attract the provision of section 6 of Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1997 (as it was prior to the amendment). On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that the act of killing eight persons in different houses in a thickly populated area was sufficient to create terror in the society and the act of the petitioner and his co-accused certainly attract the provisions of section 6 of (ibid) Act. In support of his arguments, reliance had been placed in Civil Petition No,185-I of 2002 titled Mst. Najam-un-Nisa v.
Judge, Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, decided on 29-4-2002.
3. Heard. Record perused:
4. In the above mentioned case, eight persons were done to death allegedly by the petitioner and his co-accused. The brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 25-5- 2002 at about 2-30 a.m. The complainant namely Muhammad Din son of Siraj Din alongwith Muhammad Afzaal, Khurshid Bibi, Muhammad lqbal and Mst. Ishrat Bibi was sleeping in the house of Inayat. Muhammad Maalik and Tanveer Hussain alongwith Saleem Bibi were also sleeping on their cots. Statedly, Mujahid and Khalid armed with rifles came there and started firing. Khurshid Bibi, Ishrat Bibi, Saleem Bibi, Muhammad lqbal, Muhammad Maalik and Tanveer Hussain were injured due to the said firing. Statedly only Mst. Ishrat Bibi survived whereas all the other five injured succumbed to the injuries. In the meantime, Sardar Muhammad and Allah Ditta (relatives of the complainant) reached and told the complainant that Tariq armed with kalashnikov, Muhammad Jameel and Anwar armed with rifles and Mehmood Aslam armed with .12 bore gun had killed Muhammad Arif and Abdul Ghafoor in their house and had taken away the ornaments and other articles from their house. Statedly Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Maalik also came and informed the complainant that Muhammad Arif armed with rifle, Khalid armed with gun entered into their house and had fired at Haji Ilam Din killing him at the spot. Statedly, Muhammad Shafie, the other injured, reached there and he informed the complainant that Zafar Iqbal armed with rifle, Ranjhoo armed with .12 bore gun had entered into his house and had injured him.
5. Admittedly, this occurrence took place in a thickly populated area in which eight persons were done to death in three different houses at night time when they were sleeping. This act is not of a kind which would not create terror and horror in the locality or any section of the people. Needless to mention that such crime even it is committed in the remote corner does not remain unnoticed in the area in which it is committed or even in the country on account of the print and electronic media. Their Lordships of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan while deciding a case of like nature i,e, Mst. Najam-un-Nisa v. Judge, Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, decided on 29-4-2002 has observed that the venue of the commission of crime; time of occurrence; motive which had led to the commission of crime and the fact whether said crime had or had not witnessed by the public at large are not the only factors determining the issue whether the case did or did not fall within the parameters of Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1997. The crucial question is whether the said crime had or had not the effect of striking terror or creating a sense of fear and insecurity in the people of any section of the people.
6. The circumstances of this case are sufficient to create horror and terror in the people of locality or any section of the people and these circumstances are sufficient to bring the case in hand within the jurisdiction of Special Court. Finding no force in this petition, same stands dismissed.