P L D 1998 Lahore 316 (PLP)

The petitioner alongwith two others was facing trial under section 302/34, P.P.C. for the mvrder of one Qamar Zaman. The trial is in progress before the learned trial Court. P.W.7 Riaz Ahmad Khokhar, A.S.I. was examined to prove some documents which were written by Muhammad Sarwar Inspector (since dead) with whom he was working as Moharrir, A.S.I. at Police Station Gujjar Khan while the deceased was the S.H.O. of that Police Station. No objection was taken to the aforesaid evidence either in the examination-inchief or in cross-examination, hence the statement of that witness was concluded. He denied the suggestion during the cross-examination that some of the documents were not in the hands of the aforesaid deceased Inspector.

2. The petitioner applied in the Court below that since some documents, which had not been written by the deceased Inspector, had been brought on evidence through P.W.7, therefore, all the exhibits and documents purportedly written by the deceased Inspector be sent to the Handwriting Expert for obtaining his scientific and expert opinion. The application aforesaid was dismissed by the learned trial Judge vide the impugned order dated 7-7-1997 with the observation that the applicants/accused had requested for sending almost all the documents exhibited in the Court to the Handwriting Expert without specifying as to which documents were not in the handwriting of the deceased Inspector. The case was thereafter adjourned for recording the statements of the accused/petitioner.

3. In this revision petition, the aforesaid order is challenged on the ground that grave .injustice has been done to the petitioner as some ,irrelevant documentary evidence has been brought on record through P.W.7. In this context, it is submitted that some of the exhibited documents were prepared by the deceased Inspector as Investigation Officer whereas some of them were not in his hand, as such, it was necessary to send all the documents to the Handwriting Expert to find out as to which documents were written by the deceased Inspector and which out of them were not in his hand.

4. I . have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also considered the contentions raised above. The perusal of the statement of P.W.7 shows that no objection was ever taken to the admissibility of those documents from the petitioners side. Even otherwise, the documents produced.at the trial during the statement of P.W.7 were brought on record in accordance with the Law of Evidence. The aforesaid A.S.I. had clearly stated that he worked as Mohharir kS.I. . at Police Station Gujjar Khan while Muhammad Sarwar deceased Inspector was the then S.H.O. of the said Police Station. As such, he claimed to be well-conversant with the handwriting and signatures of the deceased Inspector. After' saying so, he clearly stated that the documents exhibited in his statement were in the hand of the deceased Inspector. There is nothing on record to suggest that those were not in the hand of the deceased I Inspector. The mere suspicion on the part of the petitioner that some of the documents were not in the hand of the deceased Inspector, would not call for their examination by the Handwriting Expert, particularly so when the petitioner had failed to point out any admitted handwriting of the deceased Inspector with , which the aforesaid documents could be compared and examined.

5. In such a situation, the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner/accused was not only just and fair but did not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court on its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./J-32/L? Revision petition dismissed.