S.6 and S.7 ATA 1997 Case Law Note Proposition: Provisions of S.6 and S.

7 are not attracted unless the offence causes fear and insecurity in the public
Fazal Dad v. Ghulam Muhammad Malik (PLD 2007 SC 571) Present: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ Facts: The respondents were charged with criminal trespass (Illegal Qabza) on the Petitioners property. The respondents application for transfer of case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed; but was later on allowed by the Lahore High Court in its writ Jurisdiction; resulting this petition. There was nothing in the contents of F.I.R to attract the application of s.6 ATA. Principle: (P#577, para 5) It is a settled law that preamble is always a key to interpret the statute. The very object to promulgate the ATA1997 was to control the acts of terrorism, sectarian violence and other heinous offences as defined in s.6 of the Act and their speedy trial to bring the offence within the ambit of the act, it is essential to examine that the said offence should have nexus with the object of the act and offences covered by its relevant provisions such as section 6. it is a settled law that provisions of law must be read as a whole in order to determine its true nature, import and scope as laid down by this court in Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharifs case PLD 1993 SC 473. It is abundantly clear that in case the provisions of act be read as a whole with the offence which creates a sense of fear or insecurity in society, causes death or endangers a persons life, commits an act of vehicle snatching of lifting, damage to or disturbance of state or property failing to create panic charging bhatta or criminal trespasser (Illegal qabza). As mentioned above, the ingredients of the mentioned offences have no nexus while reading the aforementioned provisions (S.6 and S.7 of ATA) alongwith the contents of the impugned F.I.R. It is pertinent to mention here that nothing was on record to show that occurrence created terror, panic or sense of insecurity among people by securing possession of the land in question by the respondent. Muhammad Afzal v. S.H.O and others (1999 P Cr. LJ 929) Lah.HC Present: Iftkhar Hussain Chaudhry and Sh. Abdur Razzaq, JJ Facts: the wife and brother of the complainant were abducted, while going to a marriage ceremony, by show of fire-arms by the Petitioners. The Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of Special Court to try him under ATA, which was dismissed; hence this Petition. Principle: (P#933, para.7 last 3 lines) A distinction between a terrorist act and run-ofthe-mill crime has to be maintained, because in certain situations(like the present one) it would be violative of the intendment of the Legislature to do otherwise. (P#933 para 8)doing of an act or thing by using of explosives or fire-arms, display of fire-arms or deterring public servants from performance of duties, are offences under various penal statutes, but when these acts are coupled with the means rea, intention, aim or objectives embodied in the above definition penal offences under ordinary law become terrorist acts. The operative factor of the predicate offence, thus, would be the

particular intendment, mens rea, or aim of the perpetrator of the crime. the actus reus alone would not make the predicate offence as a scheduled offence. Petition allowed. Huzoor Bux v. The State (PLD 2008 Khi 487) Present: Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim and Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani, JJ Facts: The accused and his two accomplices robbed the complainant and were forcing him to sit on their motorcycle in order to kidnap him for ransom when the police van emerged, they fired at the police and police fired back in self defense and succeeding in capturing one of the accused. The application of accused u/s.23 of ATA for transfer of the case to the session court was dismissed; hence this revision application. Principle: (P# 490,para B) The settled principles in respect of terrorism are that terrorism can be determined from the criminal act designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of general public disturbing even tempo of life and tranquility of the society and other ordinary crimes are not to be dealt under the ATA. at P# 491-C The nature of the offence and particular place and time of the incident, have to be seen and determined to infer how the same has been committed; further that whether by the act a sense of fear and insecurity in the society has been created in the minds of people at large or not. Shaukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil (PLD 2005 SC 530) Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ Facts: In an open bazaar in the thickly populated area on a thoroughfare at about 9.15 am, nine persons armed with fire-arms, made indiscriminate firing, murdered four persons and also committed dacoity of two crore rupees. During the trial the case was transferred from the Anti-terrorism court to the seession court by the Lahore High Court in its writ jurisdiction; hence, this appeal. Principle: (P#557, para 11) After having gone through the provisions as contained in section 6 of the Act we are of the firm opinion that terrorism means the use or threat of action where the action falls within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 6 of the Act and creates a serious risk to safety of the public or a section of the public, or is designed to frighten the general public and thereby prevent them from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business, and disrupts civil life shall amount to terrorism as enumerated in s.6 of the Act. (P#567, para 29) After having gone through the entire law as enunciated by this Court in different cases the judicial consensus seems to be that striking of terror in sine qua non for the application of the provisions as contained in s.6 of the Act, which can not be determined without examining the nature, gravity and heinousness of the alleged offence, contents of the F.I.R., its cumulative effects on the society or a group of persons and the evidence which has come on record. Ameer Hussain v. The State (2011 PCr LJ 1004) Lah.HC Present: Sheikh Najam ul Hassan and Rauf ahmed Shaikh, JJ Facts: An A.S.I lodged the complaint where it was stated that he was present along with other police officials on duty in the premises of the Lahore High Court where he

spotted some persons beating each other outside a court room. He and other officials apprehended them and the F.I.R was registered. Principle: (at P#1010) A bare reading of the above provisions of law (s.6 and 7 of ATA) would show that to bring an offence within the ambit of the terrorism it is necessary that threat is used to design coerce and intimidate or overawe the govt., pubic, community or sect of if the act is made to create a sense of fear or insecurity in society or the purpose is to advance a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause and the action involves firing or serious risk to safety of public or to frighten the general public or burning vehicles etc. or extortion of money (bhatta) or the threat is designed to seriously interfere with or seriously disrupt a communication system or public utility service, or it involves serious coercion or intimidation of a public servant in order to force him to discharge or to refrain from discharging his lawful duty or involves serious violence against a member of the police /force or public servant. (at P#1011) If an act is not motivated to create fear and insecurity in the society at large it can not be termed as terrorism. Even an action which results in terror can not be equated with terrorism until it was not intended so because an action amounts to terrorism if it is projected with the mens rea of creating panic or insecurity. Azizullah v. The State (2011 MLD 950) Quetta Present: Mrs. Syeda Tahir Safdar and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ Facts: The contention of the applicant is that due to the firing by the respondents with Kalashankov one of his brothers died on the spot on the main road while the other was seriously injured and is under the treatment. That s.7 was not inserted in the F.I.R due to oversight but the offence does fall within the jurisdiction special court under ATA. Principles: (P#954 para B) while the plain reading of this section reveals that ac action which falls within the meaning of subsection (2) amounts to an act of terrorism with condition that it comes within the purview of clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of s.6 of ATA 1997. The nature of the action must be of a sort which coerce or intimidate or overawe either the govt., public, or section of public, a community or a sect. the act n addition creates a sense of faer or insecurity in the society or any one of its section or to general public or even to the govt. (P#956 para C)Though the intended action caused loss of life and caused hurt, but only this fact does not constitute an offence, to bring it within the purview of this terrorism. It is to be established that alleged act creates any sense of insecurity in general, or even to a particular section of society or threat or sense fear has been created due to the same.

Bashir Ahmed v. Naveed Iqbal (PLD 2001 SC 521) Present: Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Nasim Hussian Bhagwan Das, JJ

Siddiqui and Rana

Facts: Appellant reported the incident of burning of his daughter by the accused respondents by sprinkling the spirit on her person and burning her. The motive for offence was described to be the failure of the victim to fetch a car in dowry to the family of her husband. On application of the accused the case was transferred from

special court to the session court. Appellants Petition was also dismissed; hence this appeal. Principle: (P#525, para 8) A person would commit a terrorist act if in order to or if the effect of his actions will be to strike terror or create a sense of fear or insecurity in the people, or ay section of the people The perusal of the Schedule to the act also indicates that the element of striking terror or creation of sense of fear and insecurity in the people or any section of people by doing an act or thing by using, bombs, dynamite or other explosive or inflammable substances etc. is sine qua non for the attraction of the provisions of section 6 and the Schedule to the act.

Jamat-i-Islami Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2000 SC 111) Present: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J., Irshad Hasan Kha, Raja Afrasiab Khan, Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri and Nasir Aslam Zahid, JJ Facts: The vires of the Ordinance (IV of 1999) were questioned,whereby certain amendments were introduced in the ATA 1997, as being repugnant to the Constitution and contrary to the guidelines provided by this court in the case of Mehram Ali(PLD 1998 SC 1445). However, above ordinance stood repealed on the expiration of four months, in terms of art.89 of the Constitution. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in the interest of justice, the parties have been allowed to make submissions on the vires of the Ordinance XIII of 1999 as well. Principle:

Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2009 SC 11) Present: Abdul Hameed Dogar, Ijaz ul Hassan Khan, Ejaz Yousuf, JJ

The brief facts of the case are that when the victims and the complainant had reached near the haveli of Mithoo the respondents, duly armed merged from the said haveli and started firing at them and made their escape while firing in the air, creating terror; resultantly, four people died. The motive of the incident was enmity between the parties. During the investigation, s.7 was also inserted in the F.I.R. The respondents application for transfer of case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed; but was later on allowed by the Lahore High Court in its writ Jurisdiction; resulting this petition. Principle: (P#14, para 6) In order to determine as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit of S.6 of the ATA 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in the F.I.R, record of the case and surrounding circumstances. It is also necessary to examine that the ingredients of the alleged offence have any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under s.6,7 and 8 thereof. Whether a 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 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. PLD 2004 Lah. 199 ref.; fear or insecurity must not be a by product, fall-out or unintended consequence of a private crime. as such, creation of fear or insecurity in the society is not itself terrorism unless the same is coupled with the motive (mens rea).

Mohabbat Ali v. The State (2007 SCMR 142) Present: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ The facts of the case are that, the complainants were stopped by the Petitioners at a katchi sarak while they were going back to their village and Petitioners started firing at them. The driver received serious injuries and died later on and the other complainants ran away and took shelter in the garden of bananas; nearby villagers after hearing the cries and fire shots came running to the crime scene; observing which the Petitioners ran away. The motive behind the incident was personal enmity. Principle: (P#145, para 8) In order to determine as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit of S.6 of the ATA 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in the F.I.R, record of the case and surrounding circumstances. It is also necessary to examine that the ingredients of the alleged offence have any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under s.6,7 and 8 thereof. Whether a 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 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. Further cases: 2011 YLR 19; 2009 SCMR 527; PLD 2005 Pesh.57; 2012 PCr LJ 154; 2000 PCr LJ 1721