Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 72 of 1982, heard on 8th February 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 265‑C, 161 & 439‑‑Official Secrets Act (XIX of 1923), S.3/5‑ Accused through an application' before Trial Court seeking supply of statements of all witnesses who joined investigation and copy of letter which formed basis of case‑‑Public Prosecutor made a statement that except for the witnesses whose statements were recorded under 5.161, Cr.P.C. no other witness was joined in investigation and that contents of letter forming basis of prosecution were incorporated in F.I.R.‑ Application of accused was dismissed by Trial Court in view of said statement‑‑Order challenged in revision‑‑Accused, held, was also entitled to supply of copies of statements recorded in Zimnis and copies of documents .placed on file of case‑‑Case remanded to Trial Court with direction to examine judicial Police file itself and to redress grievance of accused.

Dr. Khalid Ranjha for petitioner.

Altaf Muhammad Khan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th February 1986.

The facts giving rise to this criminal revision are that a case under section 3/5 of the Official Secret Act was registered against Hussain Naqi petitioner and two others for having written objectional article in Weekly View‑Point. The challan was submitted before the Special Judge (Central) Lahore for trial. On 9‑12‑1981 the petitioner moved application before the learned trial Court for supplying him;

(i) copies of the statements of all witnesses who joined the investigation;

(ii) copies of the incriminating material and the original letter which formed the basis of the case;

(iii) copy of the statement of the author of letter;

(iv) copy of the challan and copy of the letter forming basis of prosecution.

2. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore, allowed the application to the extent of copy of the challan and refused to supply other documents/ statements on the ground that as stated by Special P. P., the copies of the statements of the witnesses examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. had already been supplied to the petitioner and that no other witness was joined in the investigation and that the contents of the letter forming basis of prosecution were incorporated in the F.I.R. copy of which had already been supplied to the petitioner, hence this petition.

3. 'The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement made by Special P.P. that no other witness was joined in the investigation except the witnesses, copy of whose statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C . had already been supplied to the petitioner is factually incorrect, in that the police had .joined several persons in the investigation and had incorporated the statements made by them in the Zimni and that the mere fact that the contents of the letter forming basis of prosecution were mentioned in the F.I.R., is no ground to refuse the copy of the original letter placed on the file. No one has appeared for the State to oppose this application.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I feel persuaded to agree with him. It is well settled that an accused person is also entitled to the supply o the copies of the statements recorded in the Zimnis and the copies o the documents placed on the file of the case. Since the learned counsel has challenged the truth of the statement of the Special P.P. before the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore that no other person was joined in the investigation therefore, the learned trial Court should examine the judicial and police file itself and if at finds that the police had recorded the statements of witnesses in the Zimnis and the letter forming the basis of the prosecution is on the record, then it shall supply copy thereof to the petitioner. The learned counsel had state that the copies of the statements of the recovery witness s recorded under section 164/161. Cr.P.C. and copies of the recovery memos, have not been supplied to the petitioner. If these statements /document are on the record, the trial Court shall also supply copy‑ thereof t the petitioner.

For what has been said above, the petition is accepted and disposed of accordingly. .

H.A.K. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.