Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 6, 7, 4

Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section: 302

  Summary: The High Court set aside an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which had transferred a murder case (FIR No. 254/2023 under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code) to the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC). The initial transfer was based on the premise that the murder, committed via firing, occurred in "Court premises" (attracting Entry No. 4, Schedule III of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997) and was "heinous and sensational." The High Court restored the trial to the Sessions Court, establishing three critical legal points: Strict Definition of "Court Premises": The occurrence took place in a public alley in front of a private advocate’s chamber in a semi-commercial area. The Court ruled that this location, while near the court, does not constitute "Court premises" within the strict statutory meaning of Entry No. 4, Schedule III of the ATA. Absence of Terrorist Intent: Adhering to the landmark Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court held that for an act to qualify as "terrorism," it must be designed to coerce the government or intimidate the public as defined in Section 6(1)(b) or (c). In this case, the record and the petitioner’s confession indicated the motive was "personal enmity" (avenging a previous murder), which excludes the act from the ambit of the ATA. Heinousness vs. Jurisdiction: The Court emphasized that the mere gravity, brutality, or "sensational" nature of an offense does not by itself confer jurisdiction upon an Anti-Terrorism Court. As a special law with drastic consequences, the ATA must be construed strictly and cannot be applied mechanically to cases of private vendetta. Tagline: A murder motivated by personal enmity, even if committed in a public alley near a court, does not constitute "terrorism" or a "court premises" offense under the ATA 1997, as heinousness alone cannot confer jurisdiction upon Anti-Terrorism Courts. ORDER; INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- Through the instant criminal revision, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.11.2025 (“Impugned Order”), passed by the learned Sessions…

Login required to view the attachment.