ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln No.D-12 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

Present:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar

                          Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah

· For orders on office objection “A”

· For orders on M.A.No.3742/2020 (S/A)

· For hearing of main case.

29.09.2020.

                        Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the applicants.

                                                ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

IRSHAD ALI SHAH-J; The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.Revision Application are that the applicants are alleged to have fired and injured PW Qutubuddin, with intention to commit his murder, within the premises of District Court, Larkana, and after an armed encounter with the police party on duty, were apprehended alongwith respective pistols, for that they were booked and reported upon.

2.                    On due trial, they were convicted and sentenced accordingly by learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Larkana. On appeal, such conviction and sentence were set aside by this Court. On remand, PW Qutubuddin did not support the case of prosecution, it was in these circumstances the applicants by making an application under section 23 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, sought for transfer of their case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction. It was dismissed by learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Larkana, vide his order dated 10.03.2020, which is impugned by the applicants before this Court by preferring the instant Crl.Revision Application.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the alleged incident took place on account of personal enmity, therefore, the learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Larkana ought not to have taken the cognizance of the incident. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order, with direction that the case against the applicants to be tried by the competent Court of ordinary jurisdiction.

4.        We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

5.                    The challenge to the jurisdiction of Court of learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Larkana, with delay of about three years to the incident that too after remand of the case by this Court is appearing to be surprising. The applicants are alleged to have deterred the police party on duty at District Court premises Larkana, from its lawful duty as public servant, by resorting to firing, when it advanced to them for their arrest, therefore, arrest of the applicants after an armed encounter with police could not be overlooked and it constitutes an act of terrorism, on their part, as is defined under section 6 (n) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, which is punishable under section 7 (h) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. The applicants may be having personal enmity with PW Qutubuddin but this fact alone is not enough to ignore an armed encounter, which the applicants allegedly undertook with police party on duty within Court premises. In these circumstances, learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Larkana was right to dismiss the application of applicants under section 23 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, for transfer of their case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction by way of impugned order, which is not calling for any interference by this Court by way of instant Crl.Revision Application, it is dismissed in limine together with listed application.

J U D G E

J U D G E

                                     .