1986 P Cr (PLP)

... Exh.C/D (v) A printed‑ "APPEAL" allegedly having been issued by the petitioner and allegedly printed at the Printing Press of co‑accused Muhammad Nazir. ... Exh. C/E. MARKS. (i) Photo copy of the alleged Nasab/ Hasabnama from Malirkotla (India). ... Mark‑A. (ii) An envelope on which the address of one Shaukat Ali Khan, in type, appears allegedly having been issued by the Office of the Prime Minister of Malirkotla State (India). ... Mark‑B. (iii) A letter having been allegedly issued to one Shaukat Ali Khan, signatures of the then Nawab of Malirkotla (India). ... Mark‑C. (iv) An Arms Licence allegedly in the name of one Shaukat Ali Khan on which there is no parentage mentioned. It was also said to be issued by Government of India. . Mark‑D. On 31‑7‑1984, Hidayat Ali Khan petitioner moved application before the trial Court for excluding the aforesaid documents from evidence. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 19‑8‑1984 dismissed the application on the ground that the documents having been received in evidence by his predecessor, he was not competent to review or revise the order and proceedings relatable to the receiving, Exhibiting and marking of the documents. Feeling aggrieved of this order, the petitioner filed revision which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 25‑9‑1984, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by Magistrate Ist Class on 19‑8‑1984 is illegal, inasmuchas, that the learned Magistrate has not given any reason in the order, that he had illegally received, Exhibited and marked the disputed documents, that he has not applied his mind correctly to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also erred in law in dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner as pre‑mature and thereby he has failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction to correct the miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law and irregularity of procedure resulting in hardship to the petitioner and that the disputed documents which are private and foreign one, have been received in evidence in violation of the provisions of the Evidence Act. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned orders.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the disputed documents have already been received in evidence, that the documents have been marked and Exhibited, that the petitioner, who was very much present at the time when the documents were tendered, had not raised any objection as to the relevancy or admissibility of the documents, that the documents having been received in evidence by the learned predecessor, the successor Magistrate was not competent to review and revise the proceedings conducted by his predecessor, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was quite competent to accept or reject the revision filed by the petitioner and that he has given sound and cogent reasons in support of his decision. The impugned orders do not suffer from any defect of jurisdiction. It seems to me that the impugned orders are quite legal and proper. The question of ‑the admissibility and the relevancy of the documents Exhibited and marked can be raised at the time of final hearing and as such, the question of excluding the documents at this stage, does not arise.

5. For what has been said above, I do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned orders passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction while exercising the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.A.K. Petition dismissed.