Mst. Ruqqia Bibi vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha etc.

Writ Petition No. 19809/2013

Mst. Ruqqia Bibi. Special Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court etc.

3.09.9.2013. Mr. Shahid Azeem, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Khuram Ikram Bhatti, Addl. Advocate General with Habib Ullah SI with record.

Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 01.7.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha whereby application filed by Mst. Ruqqia Bibi, petitioner/accused seeking transfer of case F.I.R. No. 162 dated 25.4.2013, offence under section 336-B/324 P.P.C. at Police Station City Mianwali to ordinary court of competent jurisdiction, was dismissed.

2.Briefly, the petitioner is accused of case F.I.R. No. 162 dated 25.4.2013, offence under section 336-B/324 P.P.C. at Police Station City Mianwali with the allegation that she sprinkled a bottle of acid at Mst. Amina Imtiaz, second wife of the complainant, namely, Imtiaz Hussain who was admitted in the hospital due to accident as his right leg was fractured. On seeing Mst. Amina, second

wife of the complainant, the petitioner flared up and showered a bottle of acid on her and due to hurriedness some acid also fell on the face and eyes of Mst. Ruqqia Bibi, petitioner.

3.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence has taken place due to personal family dispute as the petitioner Mst. Ruqqia Bibi and injured Amina Bibi are wives of the complainant, hence Section 7 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 is not made out from the facts and circumstances of the case; that in fact the injured Mst. Amina Bibi herself sprinkled the acid upon the petitioner due to which she was injured and was medically examined but the police did not register the case against said Mst. Amina Bibi; that cross version of the petitioner was also registered but the police did not properly investigate the matter; that three other cases have also been got registered by the victim due to a house quarrel against the petitioner with malafide intention; that there is nothing on record to show from the statements of PWs that any sign of terror or insecurity had spread in the area and as such section 7 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 is not attracted especially in the circumstances when the occurrence was taken place due to family friction, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside by

accepting the application for transfer of case to a court of ordinary jurisdiction.

4.On the other hand, learned Law Officer has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the complainant and injured PW Mst. Amina BIbi have made their statements before the police that on seeing Mst. Amina Bibi, the petitioner flared up and showered the bottle of acid at Mst. Amina Bibi and the victim received serious injuries on her body, hence the case is exclusively triable by Anti Terrorism Court and as such the petition be dismissed.

5.The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.

6.The case was made over to the Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court, in view of the provisions of Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 2011 (Act of XXV of 2011), herein after called the amendment in Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, as it amended Section 332 P.P.C. and inserted new section 336-A and 336-B in Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and amended Schedule 11, Act V of 1898, as it involved an offence punishable under section 336-B of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 which is triable by Sessions Judge.

Thereafter on 27th September, 2012 a Notification was issued by the Government of the Punjab, Home Department for addition of Para (iv) in third schedule of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997) under the authority provided under Section 34 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which is reads as under:- Power to amend the Schedule.-- The Government may, by notification, amend the (First, Second and Third Schedule) so as to add any entry thereto or modify or omit any entry therein.

Amendment of section 34, Act XXVII of 1997. –In the said Act, “Third” the words “and Fifth” shall be inserted.

The third schedule is reproduced as under for ready reference, although only Para (iv) of schedule is relevant for the purpose of this petition:-

1.Any act of terrorism within the meaning of this Act including those offences which may be added or amended in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of this Act.

2.Any other offence punishable under this Act.

3.Any attempt to commit, or any aid or abetment of, or any conspiracy to commit, any of the aforesaid offences.

4.Without prejudice to the generality of the above paragraph, the Anti- Terrorism Court to the exclusion of

any other Court shall try the offences relating to the following, namely:-

(i)Abduction or kidnapping of ransom;

(ii)Use of fire-arms or explosives by any device, including bomb blast in a mosque, imambargah, church, temple or any other place of worship, whether or not any hut or damage is caused thereby;

or

(iii)Firing or use of explosives by any device, including bomb last in the Court premises.

(iv)Hurt caused by corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance; and

(v)Unlawful possession of an explosive substance or abetment for such an offence under the explosive substances Act, 1908 (VI of 1908).

Section 12 of the Act ibid provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law, a schedule offence shall be triable “only” by Anti Terrorism Courts. Sub section (t) of Section 2 provides definition of schedule offence which made as under:-

(t)“Scheduled offence” means an offence as set out in the Third Schedule.”

The word “only” in section 12 of the Act ibid is contended to give exclusive jurisdiction to Anti Terrorism Court.

7.The allegations disclosed in F.I.R. constitute the offence under Section 336-A P.P.C., as the petitioner-accused showered a bottle of acid on the face and eyes of Mst. Amina Bibi. Section 336-A PPC is reproduced hereunder:-

Hurt caused by corrosive substance. “Whoever with the intention or knowingly causes or attempts to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance or any substance which is deleterious to human body when it is swallowed, inhaled, comes into contract or received into human body or otherwise shall be said to cause hurt by corrosive substance”

8.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the ingredients of offence under section 336-A P.P.C., punishable under section 336-B P.P.C. is fully attracted in the case which is exclusively triable by the Anti Terrorism Court. Thus, the impugned order is eminently reasonable and proceeds on cogent grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity legal or factual in the

impugned order dated 1.7.2013 which would justify interference.

9.For the foregoing reasons we feel no hesitation in holding that the instant petition is devoid of force which is hereby dismissed.

(SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD) (AALIA NEELUM)

JUDGE JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

JUDGE JUDGE

Hamid/*