2012 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.

Rizwan Ahmed and five other petitioners/accused in case F.I.R. No.786 of 2008, dated 3-11-2008, under section 302/364/148/149, P.P.C., Police Station Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan, by filing instant criminal revision, has questioned the legality and propriety of impugned order dated 17-7-2010 passed by learned trial Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Liaqatpur whereby objections raised by learned defence counsel on the documentary evidence of the prosecution placed on record as Exh.PA/G to Exh.PA/CC-2, were dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the above noted documents were produced in the prosecution evidence through the statement of Public Prosecutor without producing any witness whatsoever as scriber/Inquiry Officer of the said documents and that the afore-noted documents are not per se admissible in evidence.

3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 resisted this petition with the arguments that all the documents are certified copies of official record of the police station and are essential to reach on the just decision of the case; that intrinsic and evidentiary value of the said documents will be seen by the learned trial Court at the time of judgment.

4. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and gone through the record.

5. Perusal of record reveals that petitioners/accused of this case themselves had lodged an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace Liaqatpur with the contention that prosecution has alleged that car Suzuki Liana Model 2006 bearing Registration No.401/RNS, Engine No.H-304884, Chassis No.204009 was used for abducting the deceased. Whereas the said car had already been impounded under section 550, Cr.P.C. prior to the occurrence at Police Station Dregh, therefore, the prosecution version with regard to use of the said car during the occurrence is false. They further prayed that Investigating Officer of this case be directed to collect the record of above said car from the Court of Judicial Magistrate Qamber (Sindh) to make it part and parcel of the record of investigation and to finalize the investigation according to that record. The said application was later on disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, Liaqatpur.

6. During the trial prosecution lodged an application under section 94, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court with a prayer for production of aforementioned documents/record pertaining to impounding of the above said car Suzuki Liana. The learned trial court vide order dated 16-1-2010 allowed the said application and summoned the said record accordingly. The order dated 16-1-2010 was never assailed by the defence side before this Court.

7. It is on the record that above noted documents are certified copies of the judicial record and official record of the Police Station Dregh Tehsil Qamber (Sindh). As provided under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the judicial and official acts by public Authority would be presumed to have been regularly performed. It is no-where contended by the petitioners that the above noted documents are false and fabricated or concocted by the prosecution. At one stage petitioners/accused had himself requested the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, Liaqatpur to direct the Investigating Officer to collect the said record to finalize the investigation process. However, contrary to their above stance when the copies of the said official record are produced by the prosecution, the defence side raised technical objection that the same could not be exhibited lacking protection under section 510, Cr.P.C. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that learned trial Court has already opined that the said documents are necessary for just conclusion of the case.

8. Needless to mention that admissibility of documents through the statement of Public Prosecutor acting under section 493, Cr.P.C. cannot be questioned merely on the ground that the said documents were not produced by the prosecution under section 265-F, Cr.P.C. at the earlier stage of trial. Delay in production of documents, therefore, would not render the documents inadmissible. It is pertinent to mention that owing to the difference between civil and criminal proceedings with regard to documentary evidence when the genuineness of the documents is not questioned by defence side the court should not refuse to admit the documents in evidence even at the later stage of the trial if it considers it necessary for just conclusion of the controversy especially when the defence has an opportunity to rebut the said documents by producing defence evidence if so desired. Besides it is also pertinent to mention that even after admitting the documents in evidence the court has power to look into intrinsic value of these documents to take reliance thereupon or not.

9. For the foregoing discussion and reasons I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, therefore, instant revision petition has no merit and is dismissed. H.B.T./R-58/L Petition dismissed.