IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, HCJ 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
 
Criminal Appeals No. 1-K to 3-K of 2018 converted into Suo 
Motu Case No. 01 of 2018 
(Against the order dated 28.11.2017 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed 
in Special Criminal ATA Nos. 25, 24 and 19 of 2013, Criminal Revision 
Application No. 40 of 2014 and Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2013) 
 
Muhammad Jibran Nasir and others  
 
 
 
 
 
(in all appeals) 
 
 
                  … Appellants                  
versus 
 
The State and others  
(in all appeals) 
 
 
 
 
 
      … Respondents 
 
For the appellants: 
Mr. Faisal Siddiqui, ASC 
 
(in all appeals) 
 
For respondent No. 1/State: 
Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Additional 
Prosecutor-General, Sindh with Mr. 
Mukhtar 
Ahmed, 
DSP, 
Praidi, 
Karachi (in all appeals) 
 
For respondent No. 2: 
Sardar 
Muhammad 
Latif 
Khan 
Khosa, Sr. ASC with respondent No. 
2 in person 
 
(in Cr. A. No. 1-K of 2018) 
 
For respondent No. 2: 
Syed Iqbal Hussain Gillani, ASC  
(in Cr. A. No. 2-K of 2018) 
 
For respondents No. 2 & 3: 
Mr. Farooq H. Naek, Sr. ASC 
 
Mr. Mehmood Akhtar Qureshi, ASC 
 
with respondents No. 2 & 3 in 
person (in Cr. A. No. 3-K of 2018) 
 
On Court’s notice: 
Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Attorney-
General for Pakistan 
 
(in all appeals) 
 
Dates of hearing: 
31.01.2018 & 01.02.2018 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              2 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: On 01.02.2018 the captioned 
appeals had been disposed of by us through a short order which 
reads as follows: 
 
“These appeals are converted into a Suo Motu Case under 
Article 184(3) of the Constitution with a direction to the office to 
assign a number thereto as such. 
 
2. 
For reasons to be recorded later the case is disposed of 
with the following orders: 
 
(i) 
The common judgment passed by a learned Division 
Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi on 28.11.2017 in 
Special Criminal ATA No. 19 of 2013, Special Criminal ATA No. 24 
of 2013, Special Criminal ATA No. 25 of 2013, Criminal Revision 
Application No. 40 of 2014 and Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2013 
is set aside. 
 
(ii) 
The order passed by the said Court in the above 
mentioned matters remanding the relevant criminal case to a 
court of ordinary jurisdiction for a de novo trial as well as all the 
post-remand proceedings before the trial court are also set aside. 
 
(iii) 
Special Criminal ATA No. 19 of 2013, Special Criminal 
ATA No. 24 of 2013, Special Criminal ATA No. 25 of 2013, 
Criminal Revision Application No. 40 of 2014 and Confirmation 
Case No. 1 of 2013 shall be deemed to be pending before the High 
Court of Sindh, Karachi and the same shall be finally decided on 
their merits at the Court’s earliest convenience, preferably within 
a period of two months by another bench of the High Court to be 
constituted by the Chief Justice of the Court. 
 
(iv) 
The accused persons convicted in the relevant criminal 
case by an Anti-Terrorism Court are ordered to be retaken into 
custody as their admission to bail during the post-remand 
proceedings was nullity in the eyes of law. Our order dated 
13.1.2018 putting the names of the accused on the ECL shall 
continue to hold the field till the time the main matters remanded 
to the High Court are finally disposed of.” 
 
The following paragraphs contain the reasons for the short order 
reproduced above. 
 
2. 
As we have required the High Court of Sindh, Karachi to 
decide all the relevant matters afresh on their merits, therefore, it 
may be inappropriate for us to comment on the factual or legal 
aspects of the relevant criminal case other than the question of 
jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court which had passed the final 
judgment impugned before the High Court which question had 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              3 
 
been decided by the High Court through its judgment impugned 
before this Court. The long and short of the matter is that the 
private respondents to these matters before us are accused 
persons in case FIR No. 591 registered at Police Station 
Darakhshan, District South Karachi at 01.25 AM on 25.12.2012 
for an offence under section 302, PPC read with section 34, PPC. 
The said criminal case was tried by the learned Judge, Anti-
Terrorism Court No. III, Karachi and vide judgment dated 
07.06.2013 the private respondents were convicted and sentenced 
by the said court for an offence under section 7(a) of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 read with sections 302, 109 and 34, PPC 
besides some of the respondents having individually been 
convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 13(e) of the 
Arms Ordinance and an offence under section 354, PPC. The 
private respondents challenged their convictions and sentences 
before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi through Special Criminal 
ATA No. 19 of 2013, Special Criminal ATA No. 24 of 2013 and 
Special Criminal ATA No. 25 of 2013, the complainant filed 
Criminal Revision Application No. 40 of 2014 seeking enhancement 
of the sentences passed against the respondents and the trial court 
sent Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2013 seeking confirmation of the 
sentences of death passed against two of the respondents. All the 
said matters were disposed of by a learned Division Bench of the 
High Court on 28.11.2017 and the relevant criminal case was 
remanded to a court of ordinary jurisdiction for a de novo trial 
because, according to the High Court, the case was not one of 
terrorism and, therefore, an Anti-Terrorism Court had no 
jurisdiction to try the same. That common order passed by the 
High Court in the above mentioned matters was assailed by some 
members of the civil society before this Court through three 
Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal wherein leave to appeal had 
been granted by this Court on 13.01.2018 in the following terms: 
 
“After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants 
seeking leave of the Court to file the petitions, we on the strength 
of the constitutional provision of Article 185(3) and on the basis of 
the judgments cited before us reported as Federation of Pakistan 
through Secretary, Ministry of Law and another Vs. Gul Hasan 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              4 
 
Khan (PLD 1989 SC 633) and the judgments from the foreign 
jurisdiction (India) Arunachalam Vs. R.S.R. Sadhanantham and 
another [(1979) 2 SCC 297] and Manne Subbarao and another 
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1980) 3 SCC 140] and Ramakant 
Rai Vs. Madan Rao and others (AIR 2004 SC 77) allow these 
applications and direct the office to number the main petitions. 
 
2. 
We have extensively heard the arguments of the learned 
counsel for the parties on merits of the case. Subject to the 
question of maintainability to be finally decided by the Court, we 
are inclined to grant leave, inter alia, on the following points:- 
 
1. 
Whether the High Court had ignored the fact that 
at the inception of the case this Court had ordered the 
case in hand to be tried by Anti-Terrorism Court as it 
involved the offence of terrorism? That order of this Court 
passed in Constitution Petition No.1 of 2013 was never 
sought by any party to be reviewed and the same was 
acted upon. 
 
2. 
During the trial of this case Anti-Terrorism Court 
had dismissed an application filed by the accused party 
seeking transfer of the case to a court of ordinary 
jurisdiction. Cr.R.No.43/2013 filed against such order was 
dismissed by the High Court on 15.5.2013 and later on 
Cr.P.No.57-K/2013 filed in that regard before this Court 
was also dismissed on 21.10.2013. Whether the High 
Court could nullify those earlier orders on the basis of a 
judgment of this Court passed in some other case having 
different set of facts? 
 
3. 
Whether the observations made by this Court in its 
order dated 21.10.2013 passed in Cr.P.No.57-K/2013 that 
“The question of jurisdiction can now well be agitated 
before the appellate Court seized of the matter” amount to 
setting at naught the earlier order of this Court as well as 
the later order of the High Court and, thus, in exercise of 
its appellate jurisdiction the High Court could take a 
decision contrary to what had already been decided by 
this Court and by the High Court itself? 
 
4. 
Whether in the impugned order the High Court 
was justified in relying upon and following the judgment of 
this Court passed in the case of Waris Ali and 5 others Vs. 
The State (2017 SCMR 1572) rendered by a three Member 
Bench of this Court without appreciating that a five 
Member Bench of this Court had declared the law 
differently in the case of Kashif Ali Vs. The Judge, Anti-
Terrorism Court No. II, Lahore and others (PLD 2016 SC 
951)?  
 
5. 
It also needs to be examined as to whether the 
legislature had correctly amended the Pakistan Penal Code 
(PPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in the 
light of the judgment passed by the Shariat Appellate 
Bench of this Court in the case of Federation of Pakistan 
through Secretary, Ministry of Law and another Vs. Gul 
Hasan Khan (PLD 1989 SC 633) or not because waiver or 
compounding of the offence of murder was declared to be 
permissible in the Injunctions of Islam which are relevant 
to cases of Qisas and Hudood and not to cases of Tazir. 
The case in hand was a case of Tazir and not of Qisas, 
particularly whether the ratio of the above judgment shall 
apply to the cases where it is proved that the matter falls 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              5 
 
within the purview and scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 
1997. 
 
6. 
Whether the evidence does not speak of the act 
creating fear, panic and terrorism and whether the 
respondents are protected under the provisions of Articles 
4 and 10A of the Constitution qua the fair trial? 
 
7. 
Whether the case of locus standi set out in the 
petitions is absolutely illusionary and without any basis 
and if in such cases the right to file the petitions before 
this Court is granted to the public at large, this might 
open Pandora’s box. 
 
3. 
In the meantime, notice be issued to the respondents. The 
Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior is directed to 
place the names of the respondents on ECL, even if Secretary is 
on leave today, the Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan shall 
convey this direction to the Secretary to convey this order to all 
the Borders and the Airports of Pakistan that the respondents 
should not leave the jurisdiction of this country; besides the 
Registrar of this Court shall also inform telephonically the 
Secretary, Interior about this order. Learned counsel appearing 
for the respective respondents undertake and assure that none of 
the respondents would leave the jurisdiction of this Court. The 
SSP concerned is directed to produce the respondents before this 
Court on the next date of hearing. The bailable warrants of arrest 
of the respondents are issued for surety of Rs.500,000/- each to 
the satisfaction of Assistant Registrar, Karachi Branch Registry. 
Any proceedings before the District Judge regarding giving effect 
to any compromise between the parties are suspended in the 
meantime. Re-list these matters in the week commencing 29th 
January, 2018 at the Principal Seat, Islamabad.” 
 
3. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the 
learned Attorney-General for Pakistan appearing on Court’s notice 
at some length and have also perused the relevant record of the 
case with their assistance. 
 
4. 
At the outset we have been apprised of the fact that soon 
after taking place of the incident in this case this Court had taken 
suo motu notice of the matter through Constitution Petition No. 01 
of 2013 and this Court remained seized of those proceedings under 
Article 184(3) of the Constitution till after a Challan of the case was 
submitted by the local police before an Anti-Terrorism Court. That 
suo motu case was finally disposed of by this Court on 22.02.2013. 
Those suo motu proceedings conducted in the matter were not 
challenged by any party through a review petition and, thus, this 
Court’s opinion that the relevant criminal case involved questions 
of public importance with reference to the enforcement of some 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              6 
 
Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the 
Constitution so as to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under 
Article 184(3) of the Constitution remained unchallenged. One of 
the points on which leave to appeal had been granted by this Court 
on 13.01.2018 in the present round was about locus standi of 
members of the civil society to seek leave to appeal from this Court 
in such a case and maintainability of such a petition for leave to 
appeal but in view of the above mentioned peculiarity of this case 
we have found it inexpedient to decide such an issue in the present 
case. If at an earlier stage of this very criminal case suo motu 
proceedings under Article 184(3) of the Constitution were in order 
before this Court then there may not be any impediment in taking 
suo motu notice of any subsequent development in the same case. 
Apart from that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) 
of the Constitution is an independent original jurisdiction which is 
not affected by pendency of any matter on the same subject matter 
before any other court or forum or even by a prior decision of the 
same issue by any other court or forum below and a reference in 
this respect may be made to the cases of Muhammad Yasin v. 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, 
Islamabad and others (PLD 2012 SC 132), Miss Benazir Bhutto v. 
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1988 SC 416), Mian 
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 
1993 SC 473), Suo Motu Case No. 10 of 2009 (2010 SCMR 885), 
Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan through Secretary Law, Ministry of Law, 
Islamabad (PLD 2011 SC 365), Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. 
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2014 SC 206) and 
Jamshoro Joint Venture Ltd. and others v. Khawaja Muhammad Asif 
and others (2014 SCMR 1858). For these reasons we have 
converted these appeals into a Suo Motu Case under Article 184(3) 
of the Constitution.  
 
5. 
As the order under consideration passed by the High Court 
of Sindh, Karachi on 28.11.2017 confined itself to the question of 
jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court to try the criminal case in 
hand, therefore, we have also restricted our discussion only to the 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              7 
 
said aspect of the case. We have straightaway noticed in that 
context that while passing its order dated 28.11.2017 the High 
Court had practically ignored some important decisions of this 
Court and of the High Court itself passed in this very case at some 
earlier stages. In the said order dated 28.11.2017 the High Court 
had completely omitted from consideration that soon after taking 
place of the occurrence in this case this Court had taken suo motu 
notice of the matter through Constitution Petition No. 1 of 2013 
while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution. That Constitution Petition was finally disposed of by 
this Court on 22.02.2013 and the operative part of the order 
passed on that date reads as under:                
 
“4. 
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the challan 
has been submitted, therefore, the trial has to take place 
independently, without being influenced in any manner from the 
present proceedings, in terms of the provisions of Anti Terrorism 
Act, particularly, Section 19(7), which provides that the cases 
have to be decided within a period of seven days by holding day-
to-day hearing and also in accordance with the guidelines, which 
have been provided by this Court to monitor the trial proceedings 
in the case of Sh. Liaqat Hussain and others v. Federation of 
Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary 
Affairs and others (PLD 1999 SC 504). The relevant guidelines 
have been incorporated in the following paras of the short order:- 
 
 
“(iii) 
The concerned Special Court should proceed with 
the case entrusted to it on day to day basis and 
pronounce judgment within a period of 7 days as already 
provided in A.T.A. or as may be provided in any other law; 
 
 
(viii) 
That the Chief Justice of Pakistan may nominate 
one or more Judges of the Supreme Court to monitor the 
implementation of the above guidelines. The Judge or 
Judges so nominated will also ensure that if any petition 
for leave/or appeal with the leave is filed, the same is 
disposed of without any delay in the Supreme Court; 
 
 
(ix) 
That besides invoking aid of the Armed Forces in 
terms of sections 4 and 5 of the A.T.A. the assistance of 
the Armed Forces can be pressed into service by virtue of 
Article 245 of the Constitution at all stages including the 
security of the Presiding Officer, Advocates and witnesses 
appearing in the cases, minus the process of judicial 
adjudication as to the guilt and quantum of sentence, till 
the execution of the sentence.” 
 
5. 
Copy of this order be sent to the learned Monitoring 
Judge, appointed by the Hon Chief Justice of High Court of Sindh 
as well as to the learned Monitoring Judge of this Court for 
information and for ensuring that the trial of this case is 
concluded, strictly in accordance with law, within the period as 
stipulated by the above provisions. 
 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              8 
 
6. 
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned Sr. ASC, has 
submitted a Civil Misc. Application No. 765/2012 and stated that 
as the challan has been submitted and the court had made 
observation that the trial shall be held independently, without 
being influenced in any manner, from the instant proceedings, 
therefore, his application be disposed of. Order accordingly.  
 
7. 
The learned Monitoring Judge of the High Court of Sindh 
shall submit report to the learned Monitoring Judge, appointed by 
the Supreme Court of Pakistan, through the Registrar, for his 
perusal in Chambers.” 
 
A bare reading of the said order shows that this Court had not only 
blessed submission of the Challan of the case before an Anti-
Terrorism Court but it had issued detailed guidelines as to how the 
case was to be tried by the relevant Anti-Terrorism Court and as to 
how such trial was to be monitored by the Monitoring Judges of 
this Court and the High Court vis-à-vis cases of terrorism. It was 
clearly observed by this Court that the trial of the case had to be 
conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 and the guidelines issued by this Court in that 
regard. It is quite unfortunate that no mention of that order passed 
by this Court on 22.02.2013 in Constitution Petition No. 1 of 2013 
had been made by the High Court in its order dated 28.11.2017. 
 
6. 
During the pendency of the trial of this case before the Anti-
Terrorism Court one of the accused persons had filed an 
application under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 
seeking transfer of the case to a court of ordinary jurisdiction as it 
did not involve the offence of terrorism. The said application was 
dismissed by the Anti-Terrorism Court on 05.03.2013 through a 
detailed order a part of which is reproduced below:  
 
 
“This incident also attracted the attention of public at 
large even residing at remote area as has been published in 
newspapers and televised in all channels by media. The Hon’ble 
Supreme Court had also took Suo Moto notice of the incident. 
The clear motive for the subject incident has been introduced by 
the complainant, as well as P.Ws in their statements, i.e. 
outraged modesty of Miss Maha by house servant of Siraj Talpur. 
Had the said malefactor did not do so, the instant crime would 
have not taken place. Therefore, I found no legal justification in 
the plea of learned advocate for the accused that this case is 
lacking of motive. Indeed creation of sense of fear in the society 
due to act of the accused for murder of Shahzaib is coupled with 
motive indicated above. I have great honour and respect for the 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              9 
 
decta laid down and observation made by the Hon’ble Superior 
Courts in the precedents cited by the learned advocate for the 
accused, but I am afraid that the same are not applicable in the 
facts and circumstances of the present case.  
 
 
The cumulative effect of my above discussion is that the 
instant crime having nexus with section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 
1997. In short subject offence has been committed with the object 
to terrorize section of public and such act has explicitly created 
sense of fear and insecurity in society, therefore, this Court is 
competent/having jurisdiction to try the accused of the subject 
crime. The application being merit less is dismissed accordingly.” 
 
The said order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court expressly 
referred to the order dated 22.02.2013 passed by this Court in 
Constitution Petition No. 1 of 2013 but the order passed by the 
Anti-Terrorism Court on 05.03.2013 was also completely ignored 
by the High Court while passing the order dated 28.11.2017. 
 
7. 
The above mentioned order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the 
Anti-Terrorism Court was assailed by the relevant accused person 
before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi through Criminal Revision 
Application No. 43 of 2013 which was dismissed by a learned 
Division Bench of the High Court on 24.04.2013 through an 
elaborate order. The operative part of the said order reads as 
follows: 
 
“9. 
Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 provides the 
definition of “terrorism”. In order to better appreciate the legal 
position, section 6(b) of the said Act which defines a “terrorist act” 
is reproduced as under: 
 
“6. 
Terrorism.---(1) In this Act, “terrorism” means the 
use or threat of action where: 
(a) 
……………………………… 
 
(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:” 
 
10. 
A bare reading of the above quoted provision of law makes 
it crystal clear that Courts have only to see whether the “terrorist 
act” was such which would have the tendency to create sense of 
fear and insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of 
the society. The Honourable Supreme Court in a case reported as 
The State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P. Peshawar v. 
Muhammad Shafiq PLD 2003 SC 224 has held as under: 
 
“We have to see the psychological impact created upon the 
minds of the people. It is also not necessary that the said 
act must have taken place within the view of general 
public so as to bring it within the encompass of the Act. 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              10 
 
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 the act.” 
 
11. 
In the present case of accused Shah Rukh Jatoi, offence 
was committed on the road. By said act of the accused, young boy 
was shot dead by automatic weapon over a petty matter. It was 
terrorist act of the accused Shah Rukh, proudly saying to be son 
of Sikandar Jatoi with sole object to set example for public at 
large, more particularly the parents of young daughters not to 
object to the act of the accused or their employee(s) for teasing 
their young daughter. The further statement of the complainant 
recorded on 25.12.2012, manifests that Miss Maha was teased by 
servant of accused Siraj Talpur, she made telephone call to her 
mother, the later asked deceased Shahzaib to go for rescue of his 
sister. By such act the accused created a sense of helplessness in 
minds of people. Impact of the act was such that people of the 
area protested, came on roads, news flashed in print and 
electronic media, Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan took 
suo-moto notice. Accused Shah Rukh being influential person 
without joining the investigation succeeded to leave the country. 
It is clear in this case that the act of accused Shah Rukh Jatoi 
was designed to create a sense of fear and insecurity and 
helplessness in the minds of general public disturbing the tempo 
of the life and tranquility of the society. Provisions of section 6 of 
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are fully attracted in this case. The 
impact of such act terrorized society at large by creating panic 
and fear in their minds. There is no force in the contention of 
learned advocate for the Applicant that present case does not fall 
within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court in absence of 
motive. In the case of Mirza Shaukat Baig versus Shahid Jamil 
and others (PLD 2005 SC 530) it is held that, “there could be no 
second opinion that where the action of an accused results in 
striking or creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense 
of insecurity among the people in a particular vicinity it amounts to 
terror and such an action squarely falls within the ambit of section 
6 of the Act.” Arguments of learned advocate for the applicant that 
murder has been committed on the basis of previous enmity and 
offence would not fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism 
Court is also without any merit for the reasons that presence of 
personal enmity would not exclude the jurisdiction of Anti-
Terrorism Court. Neither motive nor intent for commission of 
offence is relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the 
Anti-Terrorism Court. In the case of Nooruddin versus Nazeer 
Ahmed and 4 others (2011 PCr.LJ 1370) this precise argument 
was rejected, it was held that enmity would not be the sole 
criteria to determine the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court. 
Aforesaid judgment of this Court was upheld by Honourable 
Supreme Court in the case Nazeer Ahmed and others Vs. 
Nooruddin and another (2012 SCMR 517). Relevant portion is 
reproduced as under: 
 
“We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court and 
have perused the record. The learned High Court has 
examined the material at length and has rightly concluded 
that the act of the petitioners created sense of insecurity 
among the villagers and did destabilize the public at large 
and therefore, attracts provisions of section 6 of the Anti-
Terrorism Act. The learned Advocate Supreme Court in 
support of his contentions has relied upon the Judgment 
reported in the case of Mohabat Ali v. The State reported in 
2007 SCMR 14 and the case of Basher Ahmed v. 
Muhammad Siddiq, reported in PLD 2009 SC 11, which are 
distinguishable on facts. Neither the motive nor intent for 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              11 
 
commission of the offence is relevant for the purpose of 
conferring jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. It is the 
act which is designed to create sense of insecurity and or to 
destabilize the public at large, which attract the provisions 
of section 6 of the A.T. Act, which in the case in hand was 
designed to create sense of insecurity amongst the co-
villagers.” 
 
We, therefore, hold that act of accused Shah Rukh Jatoi created 
sense of helplessness and insecurity amongst the people of 
Defence/Clifton area, where offence was committed and did 
destabilize the public at large. As such, provisions of section 6 of 
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are fully attracted in this case. 
Therefore, present case would fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-
Terrorism Court. Order of learned trial Court dated 05.03.2013 
did not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality, the same 
is maintained. Trial Court is directed to decide the case 
expeditiously.” 
 
In the above mentioned order the learned Division Bench of the 
High Court had clearly referred to the earlier order passed by this 
Court on 22.02.2013 in Constitution Petition No. 1 of 2013 but 
while passing the order dated 28.11.2017 another learned Division 
Bench of the same High Court had not only completely ignored the 
order passed by this Court on 22.02.2013 but had also failed even 
to refer to the order dated 24.04.2013 passed in this very case by 
another learned Division Bench of the same Court. If such 
omissions in the order dated 28.11.2017 were inadvertent then the 
same were unfortunate but if the omissions were deliberate then 
they were nothing but outrageous. 
 
8. 
The order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the High Court of 
Sindh, Karachi dismissing Criminal Revision Application No. 43 of 
2013 was challenged by the relevant accused person before this 
Court through Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 57-K of 
2013 which was dismissed by this Court on 21.10.2013 at a time 
when the Anti-Terrorism Court had already concluded the trial and 
had convicted and sentenced the accused persons. The order 
passed by this Court on 21.10.2013 reads as under: 
 
“This criminal petition is barred by eight days, but not 
accompanied with any application for condonation of delay. 
Otherwise too, after the final judgment passed by the trial court, 
this criminal petition seems to have become infructuous, as the 
question of jurisdiction can now well be agitated before the 
appellate Court seized of the matter. Dismissed. Leave refused.” 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              12 
 
 
9. 
In the order passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi on 
28.11.2017 the learned Division Bench of that Court had twice 
reproduced the words “as the question of jurisdiction can now well 
be agitated before the appellate Court seized of the matter” which 
appeared only as a part of a sentence used by this Court in the 
above mentioned order dated 21.10.2013. That part of the 
sentence used by this Court in that order was utilized by the High 
Court as an authorization from this Court to the High Court to 
reopen and reconsider the issue pertaining to jurisdiction of the 
Anti-Terrorism Court to try the relevant criminal case. That 
impression gathered or conjured up by the High Court was, 
however, nothing but erroneous and misconceived. The Criminal 
Petition for Leave to Appeal filed before this Court was barred by 
time and the same was not accompanied by any miscellaneous 
application seeking condonation of the delay and, thus, in the 
absence of condoning the delay there was no lawfully instituted 
petition before this Court and that is why it was dismissed by this 
Court. Apart from that the said petition had also been dismissed 
by this Court as having become infructuous because during its 
pendency the trial of the case had concluded before the trial court. 
A part of a sentence in an order passed by this Court in a petition 
which was dismissed on account of being barred by time and also 
on account of it having fructified could not possibly be construed 
by the High Court to have reopened the question of jurisdiction of 
an Anti-Terrorism Court which question already stood conclusively 
settled through earlier orders of this Court as well as the High 
Court itself, particularly when the said earlier orders of this Court 
and the High Court were not even mentioned in the relevant order 
of this Court. The High Court ought to have appreciated that the 
relevant part of the sentence in this Court’s order dated 
21.10.2013 could not be construed as reviewing the earlier order of 
this Court passed on 22.02.2013 in Constitution Petition No. 1 of 
2013 or setting aside the order passed by the High Court on 
24.04.2013 in Criminal Revision Application No. 43 of 2013. Even 
otherwise, an observation made by this Court in a leave refusing 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              13 
 
order regarding a party to a case agitating a matter before the High 
Court could not be taken or understood by the High Court as a 
license or authorization from this Court to ignore an earlier order 
passed by this Court finally clinching an issue and still holding the 
field. It has, thus, not surprised us that the learned Attorney-
General for Pakistan and the learned Additional Prosecutor-
General, Sindh have refused to support the order passed by the 
High Court of Sindh, Karachi on 28.11.2017. 
 
10. 
The learned counsel for the private respondents have argued 
that it had been observed by this Court in its order dated 
22.02.2013 passed in Constitution Petition No. 1 of 2013 that “the 
trial has to take place independently, without being influenced in 
any manner from the present proceedings” which observation left it 
to the trial court as well as the High Court to decide the issue of 
jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court independently and without 
being influenced by the proceedings undertaken in the matter by 
this Court. The said argument of the learned counsel for the 
private respondents is based upon an incomplete reading of the 
sentence being relied upon. The complete sentence actually reads 
as “In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the challan has 
been 
submitted, 
therefore, 
the 
trial 
has 
to 
take 
place 
independently, without being influenced in any manner from the 
present proceedings, in terms of the provisions of Anti Terrorism 
Act, particularly, Section 19(7), which provides that the cases have 
to be decided within a period of seven days by holding day-to-day 
hearing and also in accordance with the guidelines, which have 
been provided by this Court to monitor the trial proceedings in the 
case of Sh. Liaqat Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan 
through Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and 
others (PLD 1999 SC 504).” The said sentence in fact contained a 
command that the trial of the case was to be conducted in terms of 
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Anti-Terrorism Court was to 
proceed with the trial independently and without being influenced 
by any extraneous factor. The said command of this Court could 
not be disregarded by the trial court and the High Court also 
Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2018                                                                              14 
 
cannot be allowed to dig holes in the same through half-baked or 
artificial reasons. 
 
11. 
The above are the reasons for the short order passed by us 
on 01.02.2018 through which the captioned criminal appeals have 
been converted into a Suo Motu Case, the offending order passed 
by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi on 28.11.2017 in the relevant 
criminal case has been set aside and all the post-remand 
proceedings and orders of the trial court have been set at naught 
and reversed. Some of the questions raised in the leave granting 
order passed by this Court on 13.01.2018 have deliberately been 
left unattended to as the same do not appear to be relevant to 
resolution of the controversy at hand and such questions may be 
attended to by this Court in some other appropriate case.          
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad. 
February 01, 2018 
Approved for reporting. 
 
Arif