Section 25 and 27 Police Rules, 1934, R25 2 (3) Defective and illegal investigation, appeal against High Court against the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court, a symbolic sentence of four thousand rupees, the appellant / The DSP, the appellant, filed an appeal before the High Court of Appeal under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for false and faulty investigation in a criminal case, in which the alleged abductor was charged, Had pleaded guilty to the charges, but there was no point in the possibility of the accused being convicted, and a There was a discrepancy was found, appellant (DSP) was attributed to defective / unsupported investigation under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, section 27. We do not seek asylum under the court statement in which the alleged kidnapper apologized to the accused facing the issues raised by the appellate lawyer. The NT has failed to take honest action to investigate the fact, based on the record of the case and the particular record of the appellant's investigation, which in response to its law The basic duty was. The appellant was not satisfactory for the allegations and the court's observation because he could not identify a contradictory instance in his defense and was told that the court's findings / observations could be that the matter was a poor investigation. There may be several other factors contributing to the unprovoked / illegal investigation, but such factors will not preclude the investigating officer from conducting a proper investigation, which was his primary duty and
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
