6.  Terrorism.--(1) In this Act, "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where,--

(a)        the action falls with the meaning of sub-section (2), and

(b)        the use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or a section of the public or community or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society; or

(c)        the use of threat is made for the purpose of advancing a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause.

(2) An "action" shall fall within the meaning of sub-section (1), if it:--

(a)        involves the doing or anything that cause death ;

(b)        involves grievous violence against a person or grievous bodily injury or harm to a person;

(c)        involves grievous damage to property;

(d)       involves the doing of anything that is likely to cause death or endangers a person's life;

(e)        involves kidnapping for ransom, hostage-taking or hijacking ;

[(ee) involves use of explosives by any device including bomb blast;]

(f)        incites hatred and contempt on religious, sectarian or ethnic basis to stir up violence or cause internal disturbance;

(g)        involves stoning, brick-batting or any other form of mischief to spread panic;

(h)        involves firing on religious congregations, mosques, imambargahs churches, temples and all other places of worship, or random firing to spread panic, or involves any forcible takeover of mosques or other places of worship ;

(i)         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 civic life;

(j)         involves the burning of vehicles or any other serious form of arson;

(k)        involves extortion of money (bhatta) or property;

(l)         is designed to seriously interfere with or seriously disrupt a communications system or public utility service;

(m)       involves serious coercion or intimidation of a public servant in order to force him to discharge or to refrain from discharging his lawful duties; or

(n)        involves serious violence against a member of the police force, armed forces, civil armed forces, or a public servant.

(3)        The use or threat or use of any action falling within sub-section (2), which involves the use of fire-arms, explosives or any other weapon, is terrorism, whether or not sub-section (1)(c) is satisfied.

(4)        In this section "action" includes an act or a series of acts.

(5)        In this Act, terrorism includes any act done for the benefit of a prescribed organization.

(6)        A person who commits an offence under this section or any other provision of this Act, shall be guilty of an act of terrorism.

(7)        In this Act, a "terrorist" means:--

(a)        a person who has committed an offence of terrorism under this Act, and is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism;

(b)        a person who is or has been, whether before or after the coming into force of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, shall also be included in the meaning given in Clause (a) above."]

COMMENTARY

When the action of accused results in striking terror or creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in a particular vicinity, amounts to terror which falls within the ambit of Section 6 of the A.T.A., 1997. PLD 2006 SC 109.

Striking of terror is sine qua non for the application of the provisions as contained in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which cannot 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 and a class of persons and the evidence which has come on record. PLD 2006 SC 109.

A case of a public servant assaulted by his private enemies for satisfaction of a private vendetta and not with object of deterring him from his official duties does not attract provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and such an assault upon a public servant can be tried by a regular Court. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 280 (DB).

Acts allegedly committed by respondents had not been committed with any intention or mens rea specified in provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and, thus, a Court constituted under the Act no longer had any jurisdiction to try criminal case. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 280 (DB) = PLD 2003 Lah. 267.

Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary Criminal Court. Alleged interference with or disruption of duty of public servant involved in present case or coercion or intimidation of or violence against such public servants was not serious enough to attract definition of "terrorism" contained in S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and thus, Court constituted thereunder has no jurisdiction to try and decide case in hand. Order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court on petitioners transfer application reflecting same was set aside and case was transferred to District and Sessions Judge concerned for entrusting same to any Court of competent jurisdiction. PLJ 2003 Lahore 1201 (DB) = PLD 2003 Lah. 588.

Trial by Anti-Terrorist Court, assailed with prayer to transfer petitioner's case to Court of normal criminal jurisdiction. Provisions of S. 6(b) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would indicate that such provision of law would be adequately satisfied if same was likely to strike terror or sense of fear and insecurity in people. Petitioner had killed his wife and four children in brutal manner very object of the Act of 1996, was to Control Acts of terrorism, sectarian violence and other heinous offences and their speedy trial. To bring any offence within ambit of the Act of 1997, it is essential to examine that said offence should have nexus with object of the Act of 1997 and offences covered by the same. Anti-Terrorist Court's refusal to transfer case to Court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity justifying interference of High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Present incident having taken place in the house of petitioner is sufficient to attract provisions of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. PLJ 2005 Peshawar 159 (DB) = 2005 YLR 2483.

Prosecution had proved the accusation by adducing confidence inspiring evidence. Victim had mentioned in categoric manner that sodomy was committed by the accused and inspite of victim having been subjected to an exhaustive cross-examination and various searching questions, nothing beneficial to defence could be extracted. Statement of victim had been corroborated by medical report wherein it was opined in categoric terms that victim was subjected to sodomy. Complainant (father of the victim) had furnished a plausible justification qua the minor delay in lodging the F.I.R. Defence version put in juxtaposition with statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. was not convincing. Accused did not opt to get his statement recorded on oath and no evidence whatsoever was led in defence. Plea of innocence and denial simpliciter by accused could not be believed in circumstances and High Court had appreciated the entire evidence strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice and conclusion arrived at by the High Court was based on sound reasoning which being well based did not warrant interference by the Supreme Court. Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. PLD 2006 SC 524.

Accused, in confessional statements had shown motive for causing murder which was sectarian killing. Confessions were voluntary and true, which were sufficient to convict accused. Three empty bullet shells were secured from the place of incident and other offensive weapons were also recovered and were sent for examination and Ballistic Expert Report was positive. Prosecution, had proved recoveries of weapons used in murder of deceased. Prosecution, in circumstances had proved case against accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. Accused were dealt with, as per law prevailing at the time of incident and were convicted and sentenced accordingly. 2006 MLD 834.

Witnesses had corroborated each other on material point and proved the factum of recovery. Report of Expert with regard to Kalashnikov recovered from accused and empty collected from the place of incident, was positive. Prosecution having successfully proved case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, judgment of Trial Court, whereby accused was convicted and sentenced, not suffering from any misreading or non-reading of evidence, could not be interfered with. 2006 YLR 954.

Eye-witnesses including the complainant had fully supported the prosecution case at the trial in respect of charging "Bhatta" against the accused giving the same details of the incident as disclosed in the FIR. Ocular testimony could not be discredited in cross-examination. Accused had admitted his presence at the scene of incident and the receipt of injuries by him at the hands of police taking a different stand which stood falsified by the material available on record. Trial Court had also believed the statements of eye-witnesses on the point of charging "Bhatta", but had wrongly concluded that attempt of charging "Bhatta" was not covered by Section 6(d) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Offence of charging "Bhatta" as defined in Section 6(d) of the said act was punishable under Section 7(iii) and a perusal of those provisions together with Item Nos. (1) and (4) of the schedule of offences appended to the said Act would show that the attempt of charging "Bhatta" was a scheduled offence triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court. 2003 P.Cr.L.J. 762.

Prosecution had not led any evidence to show that the pistol secured from the possession of accused was the same pistol which was used in the commission of the offence of vehicle-snatching. Offence U/S 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, therefore, was, not conjointly committed with the offence of vehicle snatching. Trial conducted by Anti-Terrorism Court in respect of the offence punishable under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, was without jurisdiction in circumstances. Conviction and sentence of accused were consequently set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for forwarding the same to the Court of Magistrate competent to try the offence. 2003 P.Cr.L.J. 643.

Condition precedent for applicability of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is that the offences mentioned in sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Act. If sense of fear, insecurity in the people at large or any section of the people or disturbance of harmony amongst different sections of the people is created, said provisions will be attracted. Even if by act of terrorism actual terror is not caused, yet, sub-section (b) of Section 6 of the Act will be applicable if it was likely to do any harm contemplated in, said sub-section. It is the cumulative effect of all the attending circumstances which provide tangible guidelines to determine the applicability or otherwise of sub-section (b) of Section 6. In the present case about 300/400 people gathered at the house of the complainant and they would have destroyed the house of the accused, if the police would not have intervened. Lawyer community was also annoyed over the murder of a member of their community and had passed a resolution in this regard. Under the circumstances, the case was rightly assigned to Anti-Terrorism Court for Trial. PLD 2003 SC 704.

Schedule offence if committed by a person having nexus with Section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, would not be punishable with sentence other than sentence provided at time of its commission. Accused of an offence having nexus with Section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was committed before promulgation of said Act can be tried and charged by Special Court but would not be awarded punishment other than one provided for such an offence at the time of its commission. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1149 = 2001 P.Cr.L.J. 1987.

While interpreting provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, same have to be construed strictly and the benefit, if any, arising therefrom has to be extended to accused party. PLJ 2003 Lahore 1201 (DB) = PLD 2003 Lah. 588.

An offence which was committed before promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if included in schedule would be triable by Special Court only if it has nexus with Section 6 of said Act. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1149 = 2001 P.Cr.L.J. 1987.

Provisions of S. 6(b) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 would indicate that such provision of law would be adequately satisfied if same was likely to strike terror or sense of fear and insecurity in people. Petitioner had killed his wife and four children in brutal manner very object of the Act of 1996, was to Control Acts of Terrorism, sectarian violence and other heinous offences and their speedy trial. To bring any offence within ambit of the Act of 1997, it is essential to examine that said offence should have nexus with object of the Act of 1997 and offences covered by the same. Anti Terrorist Court's refusal to transfer case to Court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity justifying interference of High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. Present incident having taken place in the house of petitioner is sufficient to attract provisions of S. 6 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. PLJ 2005 Peshawar 159 (DB).

Essential ingredients of S. 6, sub-section (5) are (i) there should be prescribed organization within the meaning of S. 11-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, (ii) there should be an act and (iii) the act should be done with the intention or with its expected natural and inevitable consequences of giving benefit to the prescribed organization. PLD 2005 Kar. 344.

Injury sustained by witness having been admitted, his presence at the spot during occurrence stood established and his deposition about identification of respondent/ accused could not be questioned. Non-appearing of another injured person in Court due to his serious injuries and being in hospital and having died by the time when judgment was announced, his non-production by prosecution could not be a damaging factor to its case. PLJ 2003 Cr.C.(Peshawar) 116 (DB)

Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try without going into merits of case. Deceased was  renowned person of area and was returning to home after attending a funeral, where he was way laid and ambushed alongwith two persons which sent a wave to terror in public and also sown seeds of tribal feud. Alleged offence falls within ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Anti-Terrorism Court had jurisdiction to try case. Order accordingly. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Quetta) 1033 (DB) = PLD 2004 Quetta 39.

Bare perusal of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would indicate that offence which creates sense of fear or insecurity in society, causes death or endangers any person's life, involves firing on religious congregations, mosques imambargahs churches, temples and all other places of worship or random firing to spread panic or involves any forcible take-over of mosques or other places of worships, falls within ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. In present case though motive was shown to be previous enmity, yet paramount consideration to be taken note of is culminative fall out of occurrence which having taken place in Mosque, a public place, during Jumma prayer, such fact was sufficient to attract provisions of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Impugned order of High Court whereby case against respondents was transferred to ordinary Court from trial Court was set aside after converting petition for leave into appeal. Case was thus transferred from ordinary Court to Special Anti-Terrorism Court for trial in accordance with law. PLJ 2005 SC 36.

Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary Criminal Court. Alleged interference with or disruption of duty of public servant involved in present case or coercion or intimidation of or violence against such public servants was not serious enough to attract definition of "terrorism" contained in S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and thus, Court constituted thereunder has no jurisdiction to try and decide case in hand. Order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court on petitioners transfer application reflecting same was set aside and case was transferred to District and Sessions Judge concerned for entrusting same to any Court of competent jurisdiction. PLJ 2003 Lahore 1201 (DB).

While interpreting provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, same have to be construed strictly and the benefit, if any, arising therefrom has to be extended to accused party. PLJ 2003 Lahore 1201 (DB)

Word "terrorism" has been defined in S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, to be "serious" interference, "serious" disruption, "serious"" coercion or intimidation or "serious" violative against public servants. Word "serious" would imply "dangerous to life or property". Fact emerging during investigation would show that nothing has been done by accused party which could be termed as dangerous to life or property. No case of terrorism on the part of accused was made out. PLJ 2003 Lahore 1201 (DB)

Transfer of criminal case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary Criminal Court. Essentials. Question of jurisdiction of special Court is to be considered with reference not only to allegations contained in F.I.R but also with reference to facts of case emerging during investigation of such case. As per assertions of F.I.R. apparently some public servants had allegedly been obstructed from performance of their official duty and had also been assailed upon by accused party, however, most of allegations contained in F.I.R. had been found during investigation to be un-true. Material on record showed that minor and not so serious incident of altercation and push, shove or scuffle taking place at the spot had apparently with motivation other than bona fide had been given colour of terrorism. PLJ 2003  Lahore 1201 (DB)

What constitutes a Terrorist Act? To constitute terrorist act it is not necessary that commission of murder must have created panic and terror among the people. Courts have only to see whether terrorist act was such which would have tendency to create sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of society. Psychological impact created upon the minds of the people has to be kept in view. It is not necessary that said act must have taken place within the view of general public so as to bring the same within the encompass of the Act. Even an act having taken place in a barbaric and gruesome manner, if it had created fear and insecurity, would certainly come within the purview of Anti-Terrorism Act. PLJ 2003 SC 506

Where alleged murder was committed by respondent by sprinkling petrol on the person of deceased and he also fired at him with Klashnikov and by such act body of deceased was completely charred and even bones of his both hands and fore-arms were burnt, death according to doctor had occurred apart from fire-arm injury due to intense pain and difficulty in breathing in view of burning of large part of his body, and the fact that such charred body was brought for its funeral rites within the area of deceased's residence, it would have certainly caused shock, fear and insecurity among people of the vicinity, on-lookers must have felt fear and insecurity on seeing the barbaric and callous manner in which human body was mutilated. PLJ 2003 SC 506

A case of a public servant assaulted by his private enemies for satisfaction of a private vendetta and not with object of deterring him from his official duties does not attract provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and such an assault upon a public servant can be tried by a regular Court. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 280 (DB).

Motivation on part of accused party in present case was a retaliation against the complainant party and such motivation was based purely upon a personal and private grievance which has no nexus with the objects of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 908 = PLD 2004 Lah. 554.

Acts allegedly committed by respondents had not been committed with any intention or mens rea specified in provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and, thus, a Court constituted under the Act no longer had any jurisdiction to try criminal case. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 280 (DB)

Question of jurisdiction of special Court. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases of Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 1445) and Ch. Bashir Ahmad v. Naveed Iqbal and 7 others (PLJ 2001 SC 597) that an act of private revenge based upon a personal vendetta is not to be treated as an act of terrorism which is a species apart. In present case FIR itself mentions that offences in questions had been committed by culprits in background of personal enmity between parties and to achieve private revenge. Thus, a Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 clearly lacks jurisdiction to try Respondents. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 280 (DB) = PLD 1998 S.C. 1445.

No motivation of accused party in case. Conviction of accused party for an offence u/S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and for obtaining its punishment u/S. 7 thereof it had to be established by the prospective that accused party had committed a Terrorist Act, as defended in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 908 = PLD 2004 Lah. 554.

In general terms a fright, dread or an apprehension in mind of a person induced by an horrible act of a person or causing fear and terror to people is terrorism and if an act done by a person which is a source of terror in any section of people which may cause damage to life or property of an individual, is a terrorist act and is an offence as defined in Section 6 of ATA 1997 and punishable under Section 7 of the said Act. PLJ 2003 SC 147 = PLD 2003 S.C. 396.

Where a person had committed offence before commencement of present Act which if committed after date on which present Act comes into force would constitute terrorist act and he would be tried under present Act but would be liable to punishment as authorized by law at the time when offence was committed. PLJ 2002 SC 1048 = PLD 2002 SC 841.

Even if there were just few killings, random or targeted, resorted to with single mindedness of purpose, nevertheless, impact of same may be to terrorise thousands of people by creating panic or fear in their minds. PLJ 2002 SC 1048 = PLD 2002 SC 841.

Actions as enumerated under sub-section (2) to S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were offences under Penal Code itself and such offences per se, were not triable by Anti-Terrorism Court. Such actions would only be cognizable by Anti-Terrorism Court if any of enumerated offences under sub-section (2) of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had any nexus with purpose and object as defined under sub-section (1) of S. 6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Revision application was allowed and impugned order was set aside and case was transferred to concerned Court of Session for disposal according to law. 2005 PCr.LJ 1679.

A learned Advocate who was in his robe and on his way to Court to conduct trial of a murder case was murdered in a brutal and merciless manner and an Assistant sub-Inspector of Police was injured within Court vicinity which resulted in terror, fear and sensation. Impugned judgment is without any reasoning and Division Bench of the High Court did not bother to have gone through relevant provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and objects and reasons for its enactment. Besides that learned Division Bench has not taken into consideration previous orders passed in this regard by Lahore High Court Lahore for reasons best known to them. Petition converted to that of appeal by granting leave and same was accepted and impugned judgment is hereby was and case transferred to learned Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad. PLJ 2002 SC 1122 = 2002 SCMR 1225.

Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try without going into merits of case. Deceased was  renowned person of area and was returning to home after attending a funeral, where he was way laid and ambushed alongwith two persons which sent a wave to terror in public and also sown seeds of tribal feud. Alleged offence falls within ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Anti-Terrorism Court had jurisdiction to try case. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Quetta) 1033 (DB).

Leave to appeal had already been granted in another case wherein the question pertaining to the jurisdiction of Special Judge under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in terms of S. 6(1)(b) or (c) was involved and in order to avoid conflicting judgments leave to appeal was granted in the present case as well. PLD 2005 SC 530.

Cumulative fall out of occurrence as to time, place and manner of offence and weapons used therein falling under S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, created sense of fear and insecurity in society. Case against accused persons was thus, triable by Anti-Terrorist Court. PLJ 2002 SC 1048 = PLD 2002 SC 841.

In general terms a fright, dread or an apprehension in mind of a person induced by an horrible act of a person or causing fear and terror to people is terrorism and if an act done by a person which is a source of terror in any section of people which may cause damage to life or property of an individual, is a terrorist act and is an offence as defined in Section 6 of ATA 1997 and punishable under Section 7 of said Act. PLJ 2003 SC 147 = PLD 2003 SC 396.

High Court would be wrong by withdrawing such case from Anti-Terrorism Court and entrusting it to ordinary Court on its mistaken view that four murders were the result of enmity existing between the parties. Supreme Court in such case converted leave petition against order of High Court into appeal, allowed appeal, set aside order of High Court and re-transferred case to Anti-Terrorism Court. 2003 Cr.LJ 59.

Where no witness belonging to complainant party had uttered even a single word about any fear and insecurity created in society at large on account of criminal activity of accused party and the Investigating Officer, had stated before trial Court in black and white that no evidence regarding fear and insecurity spreading in locality due to action of accused had been produce before him. The High Court held that motivation on part of accused party in present case was a retaliation against the complainant party and such motivation was based purely upon a personal and private grievance which has no nexus with the objects of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 908.

Offence under Section 302 PPC and Sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are quite distinct and separate from each other. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 908.

Sprinkling of spirit on person of victim was within boundary walls of appellants' house. It was not in public and, therefore, element of striking terror or creating sense of fear and insecurity in people, or any section of people is not made discernible in FIR and for that matter on record of case as a whole. Similarly Schedule to Act also indicates that element of striking terror or creation of sense of fear and insecurity in people or any section of people by doing an act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive or inflammable substances etc. is a sine qua non for attraction of provisions of Section 6 and Schedule to Act. No doubt offence committed was certainly most heinous in nature but it does not mean that it does qualify to be a terrorist act within contemplation of Section 6 or Schedule to Act. PLJ 2001 SC 597 = PLD 2001 SC 521.

here alleged murder was committed by respondent by sprinkling petrol on the person of deceased and he also fired at him with Klashinkov and by such act body of deceased was completely charred and even bones of his both hands and fore-arms were burnt, death according to doctor had occurred apart from fire-arm injury due to intense pain and difficulty in breathing in view of burning of large part of his body, and the fact that such charred body was brought for its funeral rites within the area of deceased's residence, it would have certainly caused shock, fear and insecurity among people of the vicinity, on lookers must have felt fear and insecurity on seeing the barbaric and callous manner in which human body was mutilated. PLJ 2003 SC 506 = PLD 2003 SC 224.

While bringing any offence within ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Court must examine that offence in-question, should have nexus with objects of the Act of 1997 and offences covered by its Sections 6, 7 and 8. Bare perusal of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would indicate that offence which creates sense of fear or insecurity in society, causes death or endangers any person's life, involves firing on religious congregations, mosques imambargahs churches, temples and all other places of worship or random firing to spread panic or involves any forcible take-over of mosques or other places of worships, falls within ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. In present case though motive was shown to be previous enmity, yet paramount consideration to be taken note of is culminative fall out of occurrence which having taken place in Mosque, a public place, during Jumma prayer, such fact was sufficient to attract provisions of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Impugned order of High Court whereby case against respondents was transferred to ordinary Court from trial Court was set aside after converting petition for leave into appeal. Case was thus transferred from ordinary Court to Special Anti-Terrorism from trial in accordance with law. PLJ 2005 SC 36 = PLD 2004 SC 917.

For conviction of accused party for an offence u/S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and for obtaining its punishment u/S 7 thereof it had to be established by the prosecution that accused party had committed a Terrorist Act, as definded in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 908.

Occurrence had taken place around District Courts. Firing at large scale. Victim belongs to legal profession. Admittedly. Firing at such large scale have created insecurity and panic in minds of people. Offence creates a sense of fear or insecurity in society, causes death or endangers a person life, involves firing to spread panic. Petition dismissed. PLJ 2005 Lahore 1684 (DB) = 2005 PCr.LJ 963.

High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction ordering transfer of case to Sessions Judge. Supreme Court finding that order of High Court was not speaking order but it was perfunctory and appeared to have been passed in a cursory manner by ignoring the objects and reasons for enactment of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Supreme Court set aside such perfunctory order of Division Bench of High Court and re-transferred the case to Anti-Terrorism Court. 2003 Cr.LJ 177.

No question having been put to him that he did not receive any injury would mean that injury received by such witness was admitted. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1421.

Offence under Section 302 PPC and Sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are quite distinct and separate from each other. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 908.

Injury sustained by witness having been admitted, his presence at the spot during occurrence stood established and his deposition about identification of respondent/accused could not be questioned. Non-appearing of another injured person in Court  due  to  his serious injuries and being in hospital and having died by the time when judgment was announced, his non-production by prosecution could not be a damaging factor to its case. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 116 (DB).

Offences committed by accused clearly showed the motivation, object and design behind the occurrence was to frighten and traumatize not only to complainant party but to whole locality. Record of accused persons also showed that all members of the family were involved in a number of criminal cases. Petition was dismissed. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1071 (DB).

Anti-Terrorism Court in such case would be right in rejecting application of accused under S. 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 seeking transfer of case to ordinary Criminal Court. 2005 Cr.LJ 624.