Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 683 of 1969, decided on 13th April 1970.
S. 252 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 145‑Evidence for prosecution‑Trial Court not allowing accused 'to produce documents in cross examination of prosecution witnesses and deleting some documents once allowed to be exhibited on ground that same were not placed on file or before police during investigation ‑Contention that no bar existed to produce documents not earlier placed on record nor either side obliged to produce documents in all cases before police, held, correct‑Documents once allowed to be exhibited and then deleted‑Order of trial Court‑Illegal‑Court bound to accept all evidence produced in support of prosecution‑Accused allowed to produce documentary and other evidence which they wanted to adduce and documents placed by prosecution witness on record, ordered to be read as part of evidence subject to all just exceptions.
Firm Malik Des Raj Faqir Chand v: Firm Piara Lal Aya Ram and others A I R 1946 Lah. 65 and H. M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir All Industries P L D 1969 S C 65 ref.
ORDER OF REFERENCE
[Case reported by Malik Akhtar Hassan, P. C. S. Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan with his No. 6‑7/R of 1969 in Shamim A. Tariq etc. v. The State and Major Muhammad Afzal v. The State arising out of the same order of Surayya Azeem, Magistrate First Class, Multan, whereby she did not permit the accused to produce certain documents pertaining to the bank record and deleted some documents adduced by the prosecution, on the ground that they were not placed on the file or before the police during the investigation.
Counsel on either side contended that there was no bar to producing documents at the trial, particularly in the cross examination of the rival witnesses to whom they had to be suggested for purpose of confrontation. It was emphasized that if such documents were not allowed to be put to them when in the witness‑box, subsequently any attempt to prove them will be of little use because the provisions of section 145 of Evidence Act would not have been complied with A I R 1946 Lah. 65 was cited in support of this plea.
As to the documents once allowed to be exhibited and then deleted, the contention yeas that under section 252, Cr. P. C. the learned Magistrate was bound to accept all evidence which may have been produced in support of the prosecution, even though it may not have been produced before the police.
The contentions of either party are worth consideration. There is no bar to producing documents not earlier placed upon the record, particularly to confront the rival witnesses. There is no obligation whatsoever to produce documents in all cases before the police by either side. One may visualise a situation in which valuable documents may have been omitted to be produced during the investigation and yet in the interest of justice they may be admitted during the trial. Counsel for both the parties agreed that there was no bar either in the Cr. P. C. or the Evidence Act to this effect. It is a cardinal principle of law that if there is no barring provision, any procedure may be adopted which may be conducive to the interest of justice. The latest authority on the point is P L D 1969 S C 65. The mechanism of Courts and procedure is only intended to advance justice and hence the accused must have been allowed to produce evidence to show their innocence while the prosecution's documents admitted should not have been deleted.
Both the revisions are accepted and a recommendation is submitted to the High Court for proper orders.
Jeremy for Petitioner.
Malik Abdus Salam for the' State.
It is agreed by both the learned counsel that the order passed by Miss Surayya Azim, the learned Magistrate on 8th of March 1969, is illegal and should be set aside. It is further agreed that she had no justification for ordering the deletion of Exhs. P. B., P. C., P. D.,' P. E. and P. F. from the record when they had already been tendered in evidence.
2. In the light of the recommendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused will now be allowed to produce the documentary and other evidence they want to adduce and the documents placed .by the prosecution witnesses on the record shah also be read as a part of evidence subject to all just exception.
Revision allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer