' QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.---This criminal appeal by Waqar Ahmad, DSP Pabbi Circle, Nowshera, appellant, is against the judgment and order dated 15-1-2013 of learned Judge Anti Terrorism Court III, Peshawar (respondent No.2), whereby, the appellant was awarded symbolic punishment of fine of rupees four thousand and in case of failure to pay the fine, the appellant was to undergo one month simple imprisonment, under section 27 of ATA, 1997.
2. After recording judgment/order of acquittal in respect of accused Fazle Ghaffar in case vide FIR No.704 dated 10-10-2011 under section 365-A, P.P.C. Of Police Station Risalpur, the learned court proceeded against the appellant, investigating officer in the case, and issued him notice under section 27 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, to the following effect; "(1) You have failed to record evidence as to how, where and when the accused was arrested;
(2) No investigation is conducted by you to find out the truth of the alleged demand of ransom on mobile phone as asserted by complainant despite availability of cell numbers;
(3) You never attempted to determine the absence or presence of accused and abductee being teachers at Government High School No.1 Nowshera Cantt from official record;
(4) No attempt is made to find out truth about the allegation of complainant that abductee was having motorcycle at the time of abduction and even registration number and model of motorcycle is not identified and investigated;
(5) It is strange that the accused was shown arrested prior to the recovery of abductee but no attempt is made to indentify his accomplice through whom the abduction was effected so much so that no attempt was made by you to find out the involvement of the so called absconder in the case;
(6) That the alleged absconding accused Lauf Khan was implicated in the case by you without any solid evidence and that the ownership of the house from where abductee was allegedly recovered was attributed to him but the fact was not investigated;
(7) It is strange keeping in view the contents of site plan of recovery Exh.PB that abductee was found all alone waiting in a closed room with :folded eyes without presence of any guard and without any lock put on the doors which make the recovery memo and site plan dubious prepared by you;
(8) That you have asserted recovery of abductee at the pointation of accused Fazle Ghaffar while member of raiding party PW-5 Razifat Shah FC has not mentioned the presence of accused Fazle Ghaffar at the time of recovery and has stated that the recovery of abductee was effected at 16:00 hours while as per record the abductee was produced before this court on the date of recovery for statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Vide application Exh.P.W.6/1 which defeat your version of his recovery on 11-10-2011 because it is impossible that he would have been produced on the same date before this court at Peshawar during the official time;
(9) That accused Fazle Ghaffar was allegedly arrested and later on his pointation recovery was effected at 16:00 hours but he was also produced before this court by you on 11-10-2011 for police custody vide application Exh.P.W.6/2 which prima facie negates not only the aforesaid version of his arrest and on his pointation recovery of abductee but also amounts to fake preparation of recovery memo Exh.P.W. 5/1 followed by site plan Exh.PB?
(10) That you confirmed the aforesaid facts of recovery of abductee on 11-10-2011 on oath before this court appearing to be an untrue statement made before the court in breach of your duties;
(11) That from the aforesaid, it appears that you have failed to take honest step for investigation to dig out the truth."
3. The reply to the notice by the appellant was found unsatisfactory by the learned court, leading to framing of formal charge, containing the same charges enumerated in the notice under section 27 Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, and his statement was recorded in respect of all the charges contained in the formal charge, whereafter the learned Judge Anti Terrorism Court, Peshawar recorded the impugned judgment dated 15-1-2013.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned AAG heard, and record perused.
5. The focus of the learned counsel for the appellant, during his arguments, remained on the fact that the so called abductee, namely, Rehmat Shah exonerated accused Fazle Ghaffar of the charges, therefore, there was no likelihood of conviction of the accused even if not a single contradiction was found in the evidence of the prosecution. The learned counsel further contended that since element of ransom was missing, Judge Anti Terrorism, Peshawar had no jurisdidtion in the matter. The learned counsel maintained that the SHO who apprehended accused Fazle Ghaffar also died later on, thus removed an important piece of evidence from the case.
6. The learned A.A.-G., on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment/order on the ground that the factum of improper investigation was floating on record, therefore, the appellant was rightly held responsible for improper investigation, and convicted and sentenced to the symbolic punishment of fine of rupees four thousand by the learned Judge Anti Terrorism Court, Peshawar vide his impugned order under section 27 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.
7. It may be observed at the outset that the appellant has been held responsible for defective/improper investigation under section 27 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, he cannot take shelter under statement in the court wherein the so- called abductee exonerated the accused facing trial. The issues raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have no nexus with defective investigation on the basis of record of the case and particularly record of investigation conducted by the appellant.
' The learned court arrived at the conclusion that the appellant;
(I) failed to record evidence as to how, where and when the accused was arrested;
(II) No investigation was conducted by the appellant to find the truth of the alleged demand of ransom on mobile phone as asserted by complainant despite availability of Cell Numbers;
(III) the appellant never attempted to determine the absence or presence of accused and abductee being teachers at Government High School No.1 Nowshera Cantt from official record;
(IV) The appellant made no attempt to find out truth about the allegation of complainant that abductee was having motorcycle at the time of abduction and even registration number and model of motorcycle was not identified and investigated;
(V) The accused was shown arrested prior to the recovery of abductee but no attempt was made to identity his accomplice through whom the abduction was effected so much so that no attempt was made by the appellant to find out the involvement of the so-called absconder in the case;
(VI) The alleged absconding accused Latif Khan was implicated in the case by the appellant without any solid evidence and further the ownership of the house from where abductee was allegedly recovered was attributed to him but the fact was not investigated;
(VII) The abductee was found all alone waiting in a closed room with folded eyes without presence of any guard and without any lock put on the doors which make the recovery memo and site plan prepared by the appellant dubious;
(VIII) Recovery of abductee was shown on the pointation of accused Fazle Ghaffar but member of raiding party Razifat Shah FC (PW-5) did not mention presence of accused Fazle Ghaffar at the time of recovery, and he also contradicted the other evidence with regard to the time of recovery of abductee; and
(IX) The production of accused Fazle Ghaffar before the court at Peshawar on 11-10-2011 negated the recovery of abductee at 16:00 hours, and preparation of recovery memo EX.PW5/1 and site plan EX.PB.
8. As a result of above observations, the learned court concluded that the appellant failed to take honest steps for investigation to dig out the truth, which was his primary duty under the law as well as 25.2(3) of Police Rule, 1934. The response of the appellant to the aforesaid charges and observations of the learned court were far from satisfactory, as he could not point out a single instance in his defence controverting the above charges/observations of the court. Therefore, there appear no escape from the conclusion that it was a case of defective investigation on the part of the appellant.
9. Having said that, there may be several other factors contributing to defective/improper investigation, but such factors would not absolve and Investigating Officer to conduct a proper investigation, which is his primary duty, and under no circumstances should advance lame excuses for failure to perform his duty. Needless to say that such conduct has eroded confidence of the general public in the police in general and investigating agency in particular, which is touching the lowest ebb of its credibility. It may be stressed that investigation by the police forms backbone of criminal justice system. The investigating officer, undisputedly, enjoys authority in the matter of investigation, an& such authority would, unquestionably, demand accountability, which has been envisaged in section 27 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997. It is, indeed, noteworthy that the learned court has already taken into consideration the other contributing factors for defective investigation and has, therefore, awarded symbolic punishment of fine of rupees four thousand, which does not call for interference by this court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.