Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Factual Background
- Arguments of the Parties
- 3.1 Defense Argument
- 3.2 Prosecution Argument
- Court’s Analysis
- 4.1 Application of the Anti-Terrorism Act
- 4.2 Third Schedule of the ATA
- Conclusion
1. Introduction
The applicant seeks to transfer his trial, currently pending in the Anti-Terrorism Court, to an ordinary court. He faces charges under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997.
2. Factual Background
The complainant reported the abduction of his son, Azfar Imtiaz Siddiqui, for ransom. The applicant, initially a witness, confessed to the crime and led authorities to the deceased’s body.
3. Arguments of the Parties
3.1 Defense Argument
The defense argues that the provisions of Section 365-A, P.P.C. are not applicable. No ransom demand was made, and the act does not constitute terrorism. The defense relies on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ghulam Hussain v. The State, which excludes personal vendettas from terrorism.
3.2 Prosecution Argument
The prosecution maintains that the applicant’s confession clearly establishes kidnapping for ransom, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The confession includes details consistent with the charges under Section 365-A, P.P.C., and Section 7(e) of the ATA.
4. Court’s Analysis
4.1 Application of the Anti-Terrorism Act
The court confirms that terrorism under the ATA requires a purpose to create public insecurity. Personal vendettas, while serious, do not meet the threshold for terrorism unless they are aimed at causing widespread fear. The court concludes that the alleged offense does not constitute terrorism under the ATA.
4.2 Third Schedule of the ATA
Despite the offense not being terrorism, kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A, P.P.C. is listed in the Third Schedule of the ATA. As such, it remains within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court for a speedy trial.
5. Conclusion
The application to transfer the case to an ordinary court is dismissed. The trial will continue in the Anti-Terrorism Court. The applicant may seek relief under Section 23 of the ATA if the evidence fails to support the charge of kidnapping for ransom.