Personal enmity-driven act, no matter how grave or shocking, cannot be called terrorism: SHC

An anti-terrorism court (ATC) has transferred an extortion case to a sessions court for trial in compliance with the Sindh High Court order that held that the case involving a personal motive/family dispute cannot be tried under the terrorism law.

Zohaib Shafi was booked for allegedly threatening and extorting Rs1 million from his business partner in June last year. The accused had moved an application before the ATC-II judge under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997, seeking transfer of the case to an ordinary court, which was dismissed.

He subsequently challenged the ATC’s decision in the Sindh High Court, requesting it transfer the case to a sessions court.

A division bench of the SHC, comprising Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto and Khadim Hussain Tunio, recently allowed the accused’s criminal miscellanous application and set aside the ATC’s order.

“In view of specific personal motive/family dispute set up by the prosecution, it is not the case to be tried under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997,” the bench ruled.

“In the case of terrorism “mens rea” was essentially the object to carry out terrorist activities to overawe the state, state institutions, the public at large, destruction of public and private properties, assault on the law enforcing agencies or the public at large,” it added.

The court clarified that any action constituting an offence, howsoever grave, shocking, brutal, gruesome or horrifying, doesn’t qualify to be termed terrorism if it is not committed with the design or purpose specified or mentioned in clauses (b) or (c) of the subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Act.

“It is further clarified that the actions specified in subsection (2) of section (6) of that Act do not qualify to be labeled or characterized as terrorism if such actions are taken in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta,” the judges said.

As the case came up before the ATC-II judge, he ordered the transfer of the relevant record of the case to the district and sessions judge (South) in the wake of the SHC order.

An FIR was lodged at the Preedy police station under sections 384 (extortion), 385 (putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion), 386 (extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt), 420 (cheating), 170 (personating a public servant) and 171 (wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent) of the PPC read with the Section 7 (punishment for acts of terrorism) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

According to the complainant, he divorced his wife over illicit relationship with accused Zohaib and obtained a divorce certificate from the union committee (UC) concerned. However, he said Zohaib later posing as a navy officer pressurised UC officials to cancel the certificate.

On June 17, 2023, the accused called him and demanded Rs10 million to settle the issue, he said, adding that he gave Zohaib Rs1 million in the presence of witnesses out of fear but the accused kept threatening him and demanded more money.