PESHAWAR, Jan 19: An anti-terrorism court on Saturday convicted a deputy superintendent of police for conducting defective investigation in a case of kidnapping for ransom.

After conviction, judge Syed Asghar Ali Shah imposed a fine of Rs4,000 on Waqar Ahmad, observing that in case the fine wasn’t paid, the DSP would undergo one month simple imprisonment.

The judge observed that the overall system in the country had suffered a lot and there was no guidance and check and balance over performance of different functionaries but improvement might take place.

He added that in the case in question, the delinquent police officer had no doubt committed a number of blunders in conducting investigation but his negative motive was not ascertainable.

The court ruled that the competency and will to work of the police official needed reformation.

The case in which the DSP was charged with conducting faulty investigation was registered at Risalpur police station in Nowshera on Oct 10, 2011, under Section 365-A of Pakistan Penal Code on the complaint of Ziaullah about the kidnapping of his father Rehmat Shah, a schoolteacher.

The complainant alleged that the kidnappers had called him and demanded a ransom of Rs20 million for the release of his father.

Police arrested Fazal Ghaffar, a schoolteacher, on Oct 11, 2011, and claimed that on the same day on his pointation, the kidnapped person was recovered from an abandoned house owned by Lateef Khan.

The anti-terrorism court conducted trial of Fazal Ghaffar and acquitted him on Sept 15, 2012.

At the same time, a notice was issued to the police officer asking him to explain why he should not be tried for conducting defective investigation.

His reply was found unsatisfactory and therefore, he was tried by the court.

The court observed that the delinquent police officer failed to record evidence how, where and when the accused person was arrested.

It added that no investigation was conducted by the official to find out the truth of the alleged demand of ransom on mobile phone as claimed by the complainant despite availability of the said cellphone number.

The court observed that it was strange keeping in view the site plan from where the abducted person was recovered  that he was found all alone in a closed room without presence of any guard and without any lock put on the doors that made the recovery memo and the site plan prepared by the DSP as dubious.

It ruled that though expressed definition of ‘defective investigation’ was not available any where in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Police Rules, the hints and specifications of proper investigation could be inferred from the obligation of investigation officer fixed by law in Rule 25.2 (3) of Police Rules 1934.

The said rule, it added, states: “It is duty of investigation officer to find out truth of the matter under investigation. His object shall be to discover the actual facts of the case and to arrest the real offender or offenders. He shall not commit himself prematurely to any view of the facts for or against any person.”