| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2477 2015 SLD 2477 2015 PLD 218 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr. A. No. 67-P of 2013, decided on 24th December, 2014.
NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JJ
Muhammad Anwar for Appellant. Mujahid Ali Khan, A.A.G. for the State
Cr. A. No. 67-P of 2013, decided on 24th December, 2014.
NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JJ
Muhammad Anwar for Appellant. Mujahid Ali Khan, A.A.G. for the State
WAQAR AHMAD
VS
THE STATE and another
Law:
Section:
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----Ss. 25 & 27---Police Rules, 1934, R.25.2(3)---Defective and improper investigation---Awarding of symbolic punishment---Appeal before High Court against order of Anti-Terrorism Court---Scope---Symbolic punishment of the fine of Rupees four thousand, having been awarded to appellant/DSP for improper and defective investigation in a criminal case, appellant had filed appeal under S.25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 before High Court---Appellant, had contended that alleged abductee in the case in question, having exonerated the accused of the charges, there was no likelihood of conviction of accused in that case, and not a single contradiction was found in the evidence of the prosecution---Contention was repelled as appellant (DSP) having been held responsible for defective/improper investigation under S.27 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, he could not take shelter under statement in the court wherein the alleged abductee had exonerated accused facing trial---Issues raised by counsel for the appellant, had no nexus with defective investigation, on the basis of record of the case and particular record of investigation conducted by appellant---Appellant, failed to take honest steps for investigation to dig out the truth, which was his primary duty under the law---Response of the appellant to the charges and observation of the court, were far from satisfactory as he could not point out a single instance in his defence controverting said charges/observations of the court---Conclusion could be that it was a case of defective investigation on the part of the appellant---Several other factors contributing to defective/improper investigation could be there, but such factors would not absolve an Investigating Officer to conduct a proper investigation, which was his primary duty and under no circumstances should advance lame excuses for his failure to perform duty---Such conduct had eroded confidence of the general public in the Police in general, and Investigating Agency in particular, which was touching the lowest ebb of its credibility---High Court observed that investigation by the Police, formed backbone of criminal justice system…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492