P L D 1988 Supreme Court 99 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 9‑6‑1987 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Criminal Revision, was dismissed. The petitioner alongwith others is being tried by a learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, for offences under sections 406, 409, 420 and 218, P . P. C . and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It is stated that more than hundred prosecution witnesses are to be examined but the copies of all the statements of all the witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. and other previous statements were not supplied to the petitioner seven days before the commencement of the trial (or before the recording of the statements of the witnesses concerned). A complaint in this behalf was made to the trial Court. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, observed as follows:‑ "This provision of law enjoins upon the Court to supply copies of the statements of all the witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C., and all the inspection note recorded by an Investigation Officer. In the instant case copies of the statements recorded under the said provisions of law had been supplied to all the petitioners on 16‑5‑1987 and all the accused had acknowledged them in their statements. The statements are complete in all respects, detailing all the statements provided to them under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. The Investigation Officer had not prepared any inspection note in this case, nor was it essential and, therefore, copy of the same could not be supplied to the petitioner. After supply of the copies to all the accused persons the case was put off for framing charge on 26‑5‑1987, 10 days intervening between the dates. The gap is more than seven days as required by law. The petition in the circumstances stands dismissed as frivolous." The petitioner filed a revision in the High Court with the same complaint and with the averment also that: 'the learned Public Prosecutor made a statement that he was not aware of the fact that some enquiries had been held over the subject‑matter or that different Police Officers had been associated to hold investigation into the matter and to record statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.' The High Court having dismissed the petitioner's revision, leave to appeal has now been sought. Learned counsel has contended that under subsection (7) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, the accused ?petitioner has an additional right as compared to the other accused: namely, that he is entitled as of right to the supply of the previous statements of witnesses at least one week before the commencement of the trial regardless of the fact whether they were recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. or not. We do not agree with him. That provision read independently of subsection (3) of section 6, would show that copies of even those statements will have to be supplied which have no nexus with the: relevant offence. 'The' statements referred in subsection (7) section 6, therefore, are to be co‑related to the statements earlier mentioned A in subsection (3) of section 6 with reference to Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C.; wherein, the learned counsel agrees, the relevant provision is section 241‑A, Cr.P.C. Thus, the entitlement as of right at that stage of the proceedings is of only those statements which were, recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. This, however, does not mean that the Court has no power to direct the supply of other copies at other stages of the proceedings, if the dictates of justice so demand. But this would depend upon the facts and circumstances involved in each case and the special provisions of law including those relating to procedure and evidence. Regarding copies of statements under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C., in this case, the learned Courts below have held that all of them were supplied. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, with confidence asserted that mistakes have been committed in this behalf. He has prepared, it seems with considerable dilligence, a chart indicating, according to him, the mistakes. If so, they might have been committed by the staff supplying the copies. The chart is now appended to this judgment as an Annexure. It seems the learned trial Court dependent upon the facts stated before it and perhaps if at all was mislead also by the signatures of the accused on a list showing supply of the copies. The word ' ~f ' in the endorsement of acknowledgement perhaps, refers to the total number of copies mentioned in the list underneath which the signatures are appended. It may not have signified the receipt of all the copies required to be supplied under section 241‑A, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge, might, therefore, in the interest of the correctness of the record and proceedings, get the mistakes (indicated in Chart) checked with the record. If there is no mistake regarding 'statements recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P. C.', the matter would end there. If there( is some mistake, it would obviously be rectified and the relevant 'B copy would be supplied before the concerned witness is examined or re‑examined with a reasonable but short margin of time. However, no, adjournment would be necessary on this account. It can be done even before the date of hearing next after the receipt of copy of` this judgment, by the learned Judge. This would not apply to the so‑called previous statements not recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. even though mentioned in the Chart; (the Annexure hereto), with regard to which the ordinary law, as in all other trials is applicable, will have its course. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the trial Court immediately by the Office. With the foregoing observations, this petition is dismissed. M.B.A./N‑43/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.