عدالت میں مخالفین پر فائرنگ خواہ ذاتی دشمنی کی بنا پر ہی کیوں نہ ہو دہشت گردی کے زمرے میں آئے گی اور صرف خصوصی عدالت برائے انسداد دہشت گردی ہی ایسے مقدمہ کی سماعت کر سکتی یے

In the "THE THIRD SCHEDULE" of Anti Terrorism Act 1997 offence of firing in the Court premises is mentioned; therefore, despite the offence being result of personal vendetta where offence of terrorism is not attracted, shall be tried by the Anti-Terrorism Court.

Any offence of firing within the Court premises would only be tried by Anti-Terrorism Court.

Court of ordinary jurisdiction can send the case for trial to Anti-Terrorism Court.

There are two situations when the case routs from court of ordinary jurisdiction to Anti-Terrorism Court and both have different regimes. If the challan is put before any Court of ordinary jurisdiction and said Court on receiving challan considers that scheduled offence of Anti-Terrorism Act is attracted from the facts of the case, it shall return the challan to prosecution for its presentation before Anti-Terrorism Court because under section 190 of Cr.P.C. It is the mandate of magistrate to take cognizance of only those offences which he is empowered to try or send to court of sessions for trial. This arrangement is also within the scheme of law because Anti-Terrorism Court is authorized to take direct cognizance of the offence triable by such Court without the case being sent to it u/s 190 of Cr.P.C. as mentioned u/s 19(3) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and such Court is authorized to decide the question of jurisdiction as per section 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

This above scheme of law also finds its place in section 201 of Cr.P.C. a provision Pari Materia to Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (return of plaint) which requires that when any court if have no jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint it should return the same for its presentation to proper Court.

While examining the material, if the Court determines as lacking of jurisdiction, it can return the challan to prosecution for presentation before the proper Court.

However, when the case is pending trial and a question of jurisdiction arises then of course challan cannot be returned to the prosecution because by the time certain court processes are on the record including the evidence that become part of judicial record which cannot be handed over to the prosecution nor can be kept in isolation in court record while detaching the challan only because evidence recorded by one Court can be acted upon by the Successor Court. In such situation the right course would be sending the challan directly by the Court of ordinary jurisdiction to the Anti-Terrorism Court.

In order to respect above mandate of law, it is incumbent upon every other Court to send the case for trial before Anti-Terrorism Court.

Cases are of two categories, i.e., where offence of terrorism in terms of section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is committed and other which become triable by its inclusion in the third schedule of the Act ibid. Though for assessing the applicability of section 6, ATA, some brain storming is required keeping in view the material placed before the Court but for offence under Entry-4 of Third Schedule can on first go be sent to the Anti-Terrorism Court. If any case is pending trial before a Court of ordinary jurisdiction or any other Special Court for an offence and by virtue of an amendment such offence is included in the third schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 the case shall immediately be sent by the Court of ordinary jurisdiction to the Anti-Terrorism Court.

The cases are usually pending trial before the Court of Magistrate, Court of Sessions or before any other Special Court; what course should be adopted for sending the case to AntiTerrorism court is tracked in some provisions of law and precedents. If the case is pending before the Court of Sessions or any Special Court which usually enjoys the status as that of Court of Sessions under the relevant law. The Anti-Terrorism Court is also considered as Sessions Court under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for the purpose of trial and it has also power to take cognizance under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. as a Magistrate, therefore, can call the record of any case pending in another Court where the applicability of offences under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is attracted.

There is a consensus on the point of law that on the eve of transfer of case from Court of ordinary jurisdiction or any Special Court to Anti-Terrorism Court, it still has power to decide its jurisdiction in terms of section 23 of the Act ibid and can transfer it back to the Court having jurisdiction.

Section 346 CrPC clearly mandates to raise hands if the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction or is not empowered to try the case due to some other reasons, or decides that case should or ought to be tried by Court of Sessions, he can send the case to the Court of Sessions.