Ch. Abdul Aziz, J. Through the instant judgment, we intend to decide the afore-captioned criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Farrukh, Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arsalan alias Adil (appellants) assailing the vires of judgment dated 30.10.2019 passed by learned Judge Anti- Terrorism Court-I, Lahore whereby in a trial held in case F.I.R No.556/2019 dated 17.02.2019 registered under Section 365-A PPC at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore, they were convicted and sentenced as under:- "(i).Under Sections 365-A/34 PPC to suffer imprison for life with forfeiture of their properties.
(ii).Under Section 7 (e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to suffer imprisonment for life.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was however extended in favour of the appellants.
2. Concisely stated the facts of the prosecution case as unveiled by Muhammad Imran (complainant) in FIR (Exh.PA/1) are to the effect that he is resident of Qainchi Amar Sidhu and has established a brick kiln; that on 17.02.2019 at about 4:00 p.m. his son Muhammad Shoaib aged about 4 years was playing in the street and was suddenly found missing; that at about 5:05 p.m., he received a telephonic call on his mobile phone No.0321-4657952 from mobile phone No.0322- 4137535 and the accused demanded ransom amount of Rs.25 Lac within three hours; that the accused also directed the complainant not to inform the police else they would cause damage to his son.
3. After the registration of FIR (Exh.PB/1), the matter was investigated by Nasir Baig Inspector (PW.13).
On 17.02.2019 he upon entrustment of investigation to him reached the place of incident and on pointing out of the complainant and PWs prepared rough site plan (Exh.PK). On 18.02.2019 at about 12:05 he was present at the spot when the complainant received call from the kidnappers and deal for giving Rs.2,50,000/- to the abductors was finalized in his presence. He also took into possession the list of currency notes prepared by the complainant vide memo Exh.PF. The police party in civil dress remained present at some distance from bridge Gajumatta Metro Station. Meanwhile two persons came on Honda-125 applied for motorcycle. Ayub PW threw bag from bridge which statedly was picked up by Arsalan (appellant) and went on service road. The police party chased and apprehended Arsalan and Abdullah (appellants). He took into possession 50-currency notes with denomination of Rs.5000/- (P.9/1-50) vide memo Exh.PG. The motorcycle (P.3) was also secured vide memo Exh.PH. During interrogation, the appellants disclosed that the abductee was present in the house of Muhammad Farrukh situated at Prey Wali Khoi. Resultantly, the appellants took the police party to the house of Muhammad Farrukh (appellant), who was present there and Shoiab (abductee) was present on a bed having solution tape on his mouth and accordingly he was recovered. On 20.02.2019 Muhammad Rashid Data Operator appeared before the Investigating Officer and produced CDR (P.5/1-13) which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PB. He also got recorded the statement of Muhammad Zahid PW under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from the concerned Magistrate. On 28.02.2019 Muhammad Mushtaq, the owner of the house from where the abductee was recovered, produced verification form (P.1), lease agreement (P.2) ID Card (P.6) which were taken into possession through memo Exh.PC. On 01.03.2019 Muhammad Imran produced USB and OPPO F9 (P.7). He recorded the statements of all the relevant PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of legal formalities prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
4. The matter after investigation was placed before learned trial court where prosecution in order to prove its case against the appellants produced 15-PWs out of whom Mushtaq Ahmad (PW.3) is the owner of the house from where the abductee was recovered, Wajiha Khawaja Chaudhry Magistrate 1st Class (PW.8) recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Muhammad Zahid PW, Muhammad Imran (PW.9) is the complainant of the case, Muhammad Ayub (PW.11) narrated the detail about the payment of ransom, apprehension of appellants and recovery of currency notes according to the list prepared by the complainant, Nasir Baig Inspector (PW.13) investigated the case, Masood Ali Deputy Director Forensic FIA Headquarters, Islamabad (PW.14) brought copy of report (Exh.PP/1- 8) and Ali Faraz Khan Assistant Director FIA (PW.15) prepared the voice samples in a CD and dispatched it along with USB to Headquarters Islamabad. The remaining PWs more or less were formal in nature.
5. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court also examined the appellants under Section 342, Cr.P.C. who in response to question "why this case is against you and why the PWs have deposed against you" made almost the same reply. The reply so made by Muhammad Farrukh (appellant), in verbatim, for clarity sake is being reproduced hereunder:- "This is a fabricate prosecution story just to falsely involve me into criminal case on may be having complainant bribed the police officials. Imran (complainant) is my Bardari fellow, relative from paternal side and falls under category of uncle to me. We share the same caste and clan. In actuality, there exists many feud between complainant (Imran) and our family which was further fueled fire by business disputes (as I and Imran do the same business of supply of construction material). In my business I owed 20 lacs rupees to the real brother of complainant, one Mr.Zaheer (brother of Imran) fabricated this plan to extract the said amount from me by having bribed police to register kidnapping and abduction case against me and my fellow employees Arsalan and Abdullah. He wrote the application presented by complainant and instructed him to make fake distress calls to 15 and subsequently police manufactured this heinous act and imputed it to me. I am innocent and pray for mercy, protection and benefit of doubt from this Honourable court."
The appellants neither made statement under section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in their defence. On the conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as afore- stated, hence the instant criminal appeal.
6. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the case of the prosecution from the face of it is dubious in nature; that the appellants in fact have been implicated in this case on account of their business rivalry with the complainant; that the private witnesses who allegedly testified the recovery of ransom amount and abductee, are planted witnesses; that as per prosecution case the ransom amount was dropped from the bridge of Metro Station but no CCTV footage from the camera installed thereat was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer; that since the USB was taken into possession contrary to the procedure laid down for collecting such type of evidence, hence the report of Analyst in this regard is not useful for the prosecution case; that the SIM from which allegedly the demand for ransom was made, had not been issued in the name of any of the appellants; that the currency notes were not marked by the Investigating Officer, hence its recovery cannot be used against the appellants for maintaining their conviction; that numerous doubts emerged from the prosecution evidence but their benefit was not extended to the appellants.
7. On the other hand, learned law officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant came forward with the submissions that the case of the prosecution is entirely resting upon the depositions of private witnesses who had no enmity whatsoever with the appellants; that the SIM through which the demand for ransom amount was made, was in the name of Muhammad Zahid, first cousin of Muhammad Abdullah appellant; that appellants Abdullah and Arslan were apprehended at the time of delivering ransom amount to them; that the abductee was recovered from the rented house of Farrukh; that the mobile phone of the complainant on which calls were taped, was produced during investigation and voice of Farrukh was matched with the voice recorded in his voice; that the defence miserably failed to put forth any circumstance about the acclaimed false implication in the instant case and that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellants beyond scintilla of any doubt, hence convictions and sentences awarded to them call for no interference.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. It is discernable from the record that the case in hand was registered for the crime during which a 4-years aged boy Muhammad Shoaib was abducted for ransom on 17.02.2019 by some unknown persons but was lucky enough to be released from their captivity in pursuance of the police raid. As is evident from the FIR (Exh.PA/1) registered on the complaint of Muhammad Imran (PW.9), father of the abductee that the actual abduction incident went un-witnessed and none was named in the complaint (Exh.PA) as an accused or suspect. According to the case of prosecution, two hours after the abduction Muhammad Imran (PW.9) received a call on his mobile No.0321-4657952 made from Mobile No.0322-4137535 whereby the caller demanded ransom amount of Rs.2.500 Million for releasing Muhammad Shoaib (abductee). Muhammad Imran (PW.9) immediately imparted the information to the police through his complaint (Exh.PA) and besides that negotiated with the abductors due to which the ransom amount was settled as Rs.250,000/-. The amount of ransom was managed by Muhammad Imran (PW.9) who prepared a list (Exh.PF) incorporating therein the serial numbers of the currency notes and handed it over to Nasir Baig Inspector (PW.13).
Muhammad Ayub (PW.11), the friend of the complainant along with Muhammad Azam (given up as being unnecessary) was assigned the task for the delivery of the ransom amount at Metro Station Gajumatta, a place given by the abductors. Both the afore-mentioned PWs went to the elaborated track and under the instructions of the accused dropped the black coloured bag containing Rs.250,000/- which was picked up by Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arslan (appellants).
After collecting the bag, both the afore-said appellants made an abortive attempt to decamp from the spot on motorcycle CG-125 (P.3) being driven by Muhammad Abdullah (appellant). The prompt chase by the raiding party, who was monitoring the transaction of ransom payment, culminated in arrest of both the appellants, namely Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arsalan from a nearby place. The disclosure of both the afore-mentioned appellants lifted the veil from the place of confinement of Muhammad Shoaib (abductee), who was accordingly recovered by the police, besides the arrest of Muhammad Farrukh (appellant).
10. In the wake of facts mentioned above, we have meticulously scanned the prosecution evidence so as to adjudge the guilt of the appellants and legality of the impugned judgment. It is observed by us that admittedly Muhammad Shoaib (appellant) did not appear in the witness box to tell the tale of incident which led to his abduction and subsequent recovery. It evinces from the record that Muhammad Shoaib appeared before the trial court on 24.08.2019 and the learned Judge ATC subjected him to various questions for assessing his competence to depose in terms of Article 3 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The perusal of the questionnaire and the replies given by Muhammad Shoaib leaves no ambiguity that due to his extreme tender age he was not in a position to testify competently. Resultantly, learned trial court while giving following observation held him not competent to testify:- "Shoaib who is aged about 4 years was subjected to test to determine whether he is competent witness or not. Perusal of the replies above mentioned depicts that he is not fit witness to be recorded in this case due to his tender age".
In the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that non-recording of evidence of Muhammad Shoaib (abductee) was due to the reasons beyond the control of the prosecution, thus no inference favourable to the appellants can be drawn due to the foregoing omission.
11. The details of crime were brought on record during trial by the prosecution while banking up the depositions of complainant Muhammad Imran (PW.9), Muhammad Ayub (PW.11) and Irfan Shahid 19538/C (PW.12). So far as Muhammad Imran (PW.9) is concerned, he was father of the abductee Muhammad Shoaib, whereas Muhammad Ayub was his friend. During trial nothing as such was brought on record by the defence from which it may be gathered that Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Ayub (PWs 9 & 11) were having any axe to grind with the appellants or had some personal score to settle with them, thus, by no stretch they can be termed as partisan witnesses.
Muhammad Imran (PW.9) claimed to have received call from a mobile No. 0322-4137535 on his mobile No.0321-4657952. During investigation it transpired that SIM No. 0322-4137535 was issued in the name of Muhammad Zahid (PW.10) who was none other than the first cousin of Abdullah (appellant). Muhammad Zahid (PW.10) joined the process of investigation and got recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Exh.PE) before Wajaiha Khawaja Chaudhry Judicial Magistrate (PW.8). During trial Muhammad Zahid deposed in line with his earlier statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C and stated that he got issued SIM No.0322-4137535 for his cousin Abdullah (appellant) who promised to return it after some time. The deposition of Muhammad Zahid (PW.10) remained almost unchallenged and the defence failed to bring nothing on record for casting doubt upon the statement of Muhammad Zahid so as to discard it from consideration. The use of SIM 0322-4137535 for the demand of ransom amount was established from CDR (P.5/1-3) brought on record through Muhammad Rashid 9606/HC (PW.6) who on the eventful day was posted as Data Operator in the office of SP Cantt., Lahore.
12. We have further noticed that according to the prosecution case the abductors asked the complainant to deliver the ransom amount on the Metro Bridge situated at Gajumatta, Lahore. The Investigating Officer, Nasir Baig (PW.13) prepared the memo (Exh.PG) incorporating the serial numbers of the ransom amount of Rs.250,000/- comprising upon 50 currency notes. The bag containing ransom amount in accordance with the telephonic instructions of the abductors was thrown from the Metro Bridge on the road which was picked up by Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arsalan (appellants) who thereafter made an endeavour to flee away while riding CG-125 motorcycle but were apprehended by the police. The motorcycle (P.3) admittedly was neither in the name of any of the appellants nor was owned by them. During investigation it transpired that Honda CG-125 (P.3) recovered from Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arsalan (appellants) was owned by Shahbaz Sultan (PW.4). During trial Shahbaz Sultan (PW.4) appeared before the trial court as witness and besides verifying his ownership also testified that Muhammad Arsalan (appellant) on account of his friendship borrowed it on 17.02.2019 for personal work. The purchase of motorcycle for Shahbaz was arranged by his father Maqbool Ahmad (PW.5) on installments who also appeared before the trial court and tendered in evidence the purchase receipt (P.4). As stated above, the ransom amount was taken into possession through recovery memo Exh.PG while incorporating the serial numbers of the currency notes. It will not be out of place to mention here that the serial numbers of the currency notes mentioned in the list (Exh.PF) are coinciding with the details of currency notes mentioned in the recovery memo (Exh.PG).
13. We have minutely examined the cross-examination conducted by the defence upon both Shahbaz and Maqbool (PWs 4 & 5) but found nothing therefrom favourable to the accused. None of the afore-mentioned witnesses had any long or short standing friendly relationship with the complainant of the case and similarly had no affair of grudge or abhorrence with any of the appellants. Likewise, the arrest of Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arsalan (appellant) along with motorcycle shortly after the receipt of bag containing ransom amount was also found beyond shred of any ambiguity on the basis of statements of Muhammad Ayub (PW.11) and Irfan Shahid Constable (PW.12). Even an in-depth analysis of the afore-mentioned part of the prosecution case is found to have been proved satisfactorily without giving vent to any doubt. No material was brought on record so as to persuade us for drawing a conclusion that Muhammad Ayub (PW.11) and Irfan (PW.12) had any sinister design to falsely depose against the appellants. The same set of witnesses coupled with the Investigating Officer Nasir Baig (PW.13) deposed about the disclosure of Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arsalan (appellants) made immediately after their arrest about the place of abduction of Muhammad Shoaib who was being guarded by Muhammad Farrukh (appellant). Indeed in pursuance of the afore-mentioned disclosure of Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arsalan (appellants), the police was successful in getting recovered the abductee. We feel a pressing need to lay emphasis that the afore-mentioned discovery of fact which was not known to anyone, thus had legal significance and admissible under Article 40 of QSO, 1984 as is evident from the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Sh.Muhammad Amjad v. The State (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 704):- "Further it is noted that as per Article 40, corresponding to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is revealed in consequence of information received from any accused in custody of a Police Officer, such information whether it amounts to a confession or not as it relates distinctly to the fact whereby discovered, may be proved. The information supplied by the appellant, under Article 40 ibid, relating to incriminatory articles is admissible."
14. There is another important fact which substantiates the prosecution case as far as the culpability of the appellants is concerned. Admittedly, Muhammad Shoaib, the abductee was recovered from the house, as mentioned above, being guarded by Muhammad Farrukh (appellant), who obtained this place on rent. In order to prove the factum that the questioned house was under the occupation and possession of Muhammad Farrukh (appellant), the landlord namely Mushtaq Ahmad (PW.3) put appearance. He while appearing in the court besides deposing that the said house was rented to Muhammad Farrukh (appellant) also tendered in evidence photocopy of verification form (P.1) and rent deed (P.2). The perusal of documents (P.1 & P.2) manifestly makes it clear that the house was rented to Muhammad Farrukh (appellant) against payment of rent of Rs.8000/- per month and for a lease period commencing from 15.07.2017. Thus, one cannot help noticing that at the time of incident i.e. on 17.02.2019 the questioned house was under the occupation of Muhammad Farrukh (appellant) as a tenant. The aspect mentioned hereinabove is sufficient to demonstrate that the abductee was recovered from the house of Muhammad Farrukh (appellant) and he along with his co-appellants was very much involved in the commission of offence structured by the prosecution.
15. We also feel a pressing need to mention here that as per the candid admission made by complainant Muhammad Imran(PW.9) he had previous acquaintance with Muhammad Farrukh (appellant). The foregoing fact though was vociferously urged by the defence as a circumstance favourable to the appellants but we are not in agreement with such submissions. It was rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant that though Muhammad Farrukh (appellant) was known to the complainant Muhammad Imran (PW.9) but he masterminded the incident and remained behind the curtain, while using two of his cronies for receiving the ransom amount.
16. We have also given a considered thought to the USB as well as the mobile phone which were taken into possession by Nasir Baig Inspector (PW.13) through memo Exh.PD. It was acclaimed by the prosecution that the said mobile phone and USB were containing the conversation between Muhammad Farrukh (appellant) and Muhammad Imran complainant (PW.9) qua settling the ransom amount. Thus, said mobile phone and USB were sent to Cyber Crime Wing Islamabad for analysis. According to the statement of Ali Faraz Khan Assistant Director FIA (PW.15), he obtained the voice samples of Farrukh (appellant) who had been produced by Nasir Baig Inspector. Masood Ali Deputy Director Forensic FIA Headquarters Islamabad (PW.14) tendered in evidence Audio Forensic Analysis Report (Exh.PP/1-8), the perusal of which shows that the voice samples obtained on CD and the voice recorded on USB are the same and that the variation was due to vocal sound pauses and medium of the speakers. Since this is an important aspect, hence relevant portion of the report (Exh.PP/1-8) is being reproduced hereunder:- "During the analysis four voices were compared with four sample voices and the result (2.29 out of 04) generated by audio forensic tool depict that voices are almost same because the result is close to 4. This difference is because of the variations of the vocal sound pauses and medium of the speakers."
Furthermore, the data so tendered above since emanated from automated information system and collected through modern devices and techniques, thus was legitimately brought on record in terms of Articles 46-A and 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The foregoing provisions for reference sake are being quoted hereunder:- "46-A. Relevance of information generated, received or recorded by automated information system. Statements in the form of electronic documents generated, received or recorded by an automated information system while it is in working order are relevant facts.
164 Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices etc. In such cases as the Court may consider appropriate, the Court may allow to be produced any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques."
Admittedly, Masood Ali (PW.14) was performing his duties as Deputy Director Forensic FIA and the documentary evidence furnished by him was extracted from USB and CD which were containing the voice note of Muhammad Arsalan (appellant) and Muhammad Imran (PW.9), thus its genuineness and admissibility is above any question mark. Living in a technological era and well conversant with the prevailing menace of false depositions, the Courts can legitimately use data generated through modern devices for ascertaining the truth of a fact through the enabling provisions of Articles 46-A and 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Inexorably, from the data collected through modern devices brought on record in the evidence of PW.14, it was proved beyond any shred of doubt that the voice samples available on CD and the voice recorded on USB are the same, thus this aspect further strengthen the prosecution case. In the case reported as Saifal v. The State (2013 PCrLJ 1082), even the record of a mobile company furnished through its representative was termed as admissible with the following observation:- "The record of mobile company and evidence its representative is admissible in terms of Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order which provides that the Court may allow the production of any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices and techniques."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan also dilated upon the scope of Article 46-A and 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 in the case titled as Ali Raza alias Peeter and others v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1982) and an observation therefrom is essentially required to be referred which is as under:- "Technological innovations have opened up new avenues of proof to drive home charges. Article 164 of the Order ibid invests the Court with wide power to make use of evidence generated by modern devices and techniques; Article 46-A and 78-A of the Order ibid as well as provisions of Electronic Transaction Ordinance (L1 of 2002) have smoothened the procedure to receive such evidence, subject to restrictions/limitations provided therein."
17. Adverting to the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that subsequent to their arrest none of them was subjected to identification test parade, we feel no hesitation to observe that even this factor cannot come for the rescue of the appellants to save them from the consequences of crime they committed. It manifests from the bare perusal of the prosecution case that two appellants, namely Muhammad Abdullah and Muhammad Arsalan were apprehended in the thick of incident when they after the receipt of ransom amount were making an endeavour for decamping from the spot. The ransom amount was also recovered from their possession and at the same time the veil was lifted from the place of captivity of Muhammad Shoaib (abductee).
Above all, the identification of these two persons and even of Muhammad Farrukh (appellant) was not necessarily to be got conducted from abductee Muhammad Shoaib who was just four years and during trial was found not be competent enough in this regard. Even otherwise, holding of identification parade is not essential in an abduction incident. Reliance in this context may be placed upon the case reported as Muneer Ahmad v. The State (NLR 1998 Criminal 305) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- "In our view, in the present case there was no necessity of holding the identification test as the facts show that the abductee as well as the other two witnesses had ample opportunity to see the culprits. As regards the abductee, Abdul Ghani, the evidence is that he remained in the custody of the abductors for over a month and, therefore, came to know the abduction very well. The other two eye-witnesses, namely Dhani Bux and Mushtaque also had several opportunities of seeing the appellants and, therefore, in their case also it can be said without any doubt that they came to know of their identity."
Moreover, non-corroboration from identification test parade gets significance only if there is a doubt qua the involvement of the accused. While holding so, reference may be made to the case reported as Bashirullah and another v. The State (2002 PCrLJ 1183) wherein the Federal Shariat Court held as under:- "Further to our mind, corroboration from identification test would be essential only if there is doubt regarding identity of the accused otherwise his involvement in the crime can be inferred from the attendant circumstances."
18. For what has been discussed above, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants for the abduction of Muhammad Shoaib (abductee). In this view of the matter, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 365-A PPC are maintained.
19. As far as the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 7 (e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is concerned, it is now settled that when an accused is tried by a Judge Anti-Terrorism Court for a scheduled offence, then the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act becomes uncalled for. While holding so, we are enlightened from the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in case reported as Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State and others (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 61) wherein it was held as under:- "For the purposes of further clarity on this issue it is explained for the benefit of all concerned that the case of the offences specified in entry No.4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are cases of those heinous offences which do not per se constitute the offence of terrorism but such cases are to be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court because of their inclusion in the Third Schedule. It is also clarified that in such cases of heinous offences mentioned in entry No.4 of the said Schedule an Anti-Terrorism Court can pass a punishment for the said offence and not for committing the offence of terrorism. It may be pertinent to mention here that the offence of abduction or kidnapping for ransom under section 365-A, P.P.C. is included in entry No.4 of the Third Schedule and kidnapping for ransom is also one of the actions specified in section 7 (e) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997. Abduction or kidnapping for ransom is a heinous offence but the scheme of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 shows that an ordinary case of abduction or kidnapping for ransom under section 365-A, P.P.C. is merely triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court but if kidnapping for ransom is committed with the design or purpose mentioned in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 then such offence amounts to terrorism attracting section 7 (e) of that Act. "
In such a scenario, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 7 (e) of the Act (ibid) are not sustainable, which are accordingly set-aside.
20. With the afore-said said modification in the impugned judgment, the instant appeal is otherwise dismissed.
21. Before parting with this judgment, we are persuaded to observe here that the case in hand was investigated impeccably by Nasir Baig Inspector (PW.13) who deserves appreciation. Office shall transmit a copy of this judgment to CCPO, Lahore for doing the needful.