Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 605 2016 SLD 605 2016 PLD 21
Peshawar High Court
Cr. A. No. 67-P of 2013, decided on 24th December, 2014. Date of hearing: 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: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 25,27

Law: Police Rules, 1934

Section: 25.2(3)

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 and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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