1998 P Cr (PLP)

4-A. The learned trial Court rejected the plea of the defence vide impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on PLD 1975 Lah. 143 PLD 1967 Lah. 1045, 1986 PCr.LJ 1536, 1991 MLD 17, AIR 1951 Mad. 707 on the point that the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill in the lacunas and the Court should act as an Arbitrator between the parties and not to assume the role of a prosecutor.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the receipts sought to be exhibited were found during the search of the house after the dacoity and murder, that is why the receipts were not attached with the challan. As these receipts are admissible in the evidence in view of Article 18 of the, Qanun-e -Shahadat, so those were produced and proved through the evidence of P.W.9 who is scriber of the same. According to law, the Court cannot refuse to admit the documents which are relevant for the decision of the case and the objection of the defence is not well-founded as there is difference between the Civil and Criminal proceedings, and it contain different procedure on the documentary evidence. In view of the provisions of Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., the parties are required to attach with the plaint all the documents on which reliance is placed whereas there is no corresponding provision in the Criminal Procedure Code placing any embargo on the powers of the Court to receive any document at a belated stage provided it is relevant under Article 18 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. The admissibility of documents cannot be disputed or questioned on the ground that they are fabricated. It is for the trial Court to determine at the time of decision whether they are reliable and genuine documents. Learned counsel for the complainant also relied upon section 265-F, Cr.P.C. and submitted that the prosecution is entitled to place before the Court all the evidence and mere delay in producing the receipts (documentary evidence) per se would not make the documents as inadmissible. He has placed reliance on 1992 PCr.LJ 729, 1971 PCr.LJ 609, 1984 PCr.LJ 1923, PLD 1994 SC 95 and PLD 1983 Lah. 139.

7. According to Qanun-e-Shahadat, evidence can be led in the Court with respect to the facts which are relevant under Articles 18 to 45 thereof. As the controversy was with respect to golden ornaments which were allegedly taken during the course of dacoity and murder by the accused persons, the question of ownership of the property can be proved during the trial on the basis of afore mentioned Articles of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. At this stage, it would be advantageous to reproduce Article 18 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984:-- "

18. Evidence may be given in any suit or proceedings of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as or hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others. Explanation. . . . .. Illustrations (a) ....................................................................................... (b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for production at the first hearing of the case, a bond on which he relies. This Article does not enable him to produce the bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure."

8. According to Illustration (b), evidence can be led to all the relevant facts subject to this condition that if there is some procedural hurdle that must be 0 overcome as is provided under Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. For facility of reference, Rules 1 and 2 of Order X111, C.P C. are reproduced:-- "

1. Documentary evidence to be produced at the first hearing.-- (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at the first hearing of the suit, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the court has ordered to be produced. (2) ............................................ .........................................

2. Effect of non production of documents.-- No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof; and the court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing " There is abundant precedent law `on this point The object of this rule is to prevent fraud and not to penalize parties for non-production of documents in time. Where the genuineness of the documents is beyond doubt, they ought not to be shut out of evidence if produced at a late stage.

9. There is difference between the admissibility of document and their intrinsic value whether the Court should rely upon them or not. After admitting the documents in evidence, the Court has to see whether these documents are genuine or, fabricated. As it is within the domain of the trial Court, I would not like to express my opinion on that, suffice it to say that the learned trial Judge E rightly allowed the documents to come on the record being admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat.

10. The petitioner is not devoid of the legal remedy. He can after due cross- examination of P.W.9 raise all the contentions in support of the alleged fabrication/manufacturing or intrinsic value of the documents, which, of course, would be properly decided by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. The upshot of the above discussion is this that the revision petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. H.B.T./M-480/L