IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl.Revision Application No.D-08 of 2018

Present:

Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio,

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

Applicant/complainant     :         Nooral s/o Faiz Muhammad Shar

Through Mr.Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate.

State                                        :         Through Mr.Khadim Hussain Khooharo, A.P.G

Date of hearing                   :         16.10.2018             

Date of decision                   :        16.10.2018                         

O R D E R 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The applicant/complainant by way of instant criminal revision application has  impugned an order dated 20.08.2018, passed by learned Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, which reads as under;

“When the investigation has been conducted and police has reached on the final conclusion, the offence is triable by ordinary Court having jurisdiction, let the FIR be returned to SIO, for further action accordingly”.

2.                    The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal revision application are that the applicant/complainant Nooral lodged FIR with P.S Geehalpur, District Kashmore @ Kandhkot, alleging therein that he is having landed property, which and his witnesses, when were going to cultivate, were prevented from cultivating it by accused Melao and others by asking that they will have to pay “Bhatta” to them first before cultivating their land, which was refused, on that the accused attempted to abduct PW Arab, on his resistance fired at him with intention to commit his murder, which hit to his left leg and then all the accused went away by making aerial firing to create harassment and terrorism. The FIR of the incident was lodged by the applicant/complainant with P.S Geehalpur, it was forwarded in terms of Section 154 Cr.PC to learned A.T.A Judge Kashmore @ Kandhkot, who returned the same to the police by way of his order, which the applicant has impugned before this Court by way of instant criminal revision application, as stated above.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant/complainant that; the learned A.T.A Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot has returned the FIR of the case to the police for its presentation before the Court of ordinary jurisdiction without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order.

4.                    Learned A.P.G while supporting the impugned order have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application by contending that the cognizance of the case has already been taken by ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction, which is not challenged.

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

6.                     In the case of Muhabat Ali and another Vs. The State (2007 SCMR 142), the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down the principles to determine the act of terrorism to attract the provision of Section 6 of the Act of 1997, by making following observation;

"In order to determine as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Act, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in the FIR, record of the case and surrounding circumstances. It is also necessary to examine that the ingredients of alleged offence have any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under sections 6, 7 and 8 thereof. Whether the particular act is an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or purpose behind the said Act is to be seen. It is also to be seen as to whether the said act has created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public or any section of the public or community or in any sect."

7.                    While examining the case in hand on the above touchstone, it is manifest on the face of record that the offence was reported by the applicant/complainant to police with delay of about 17 days, the alleged offence took place in rural area, the motive alleged in the FIR was that the accused prevented the applicant/complainant party from cultivating their land without making payment of “Bhatta” to them. No “Bhatta” was paid. There is no allegation of “sectarian and religious” issues and no threat or over awe to society or section of people or public is alleged in the case, therefore, the question of creating terror in the minds of general public has not arisen; hence, the alleged offence has got no nexus with the section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. In these circumstances, the learned A.T.A Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot was right to return the FIR of the incident to police for its presentation before the Court of ordinary jurisdiction by way of impugned order, which is not calling for any interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

8.                    The above are reasons of short order dated 16.10.2018, whereby the instant criminal revision application was dismissed.

                                                                                                                   JUDGE

                                                                                           JUDGE

..