Admissibility in evidence

Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899 provides that when a document has once been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called into question at any stage of the suit or in proceedings, on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped

Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided there and then when the document is tendered in evidence

Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, admits the document in evidence and allows the parties to use it in examination and cross-examination, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed

It is, therefore, essential that parties to litigation, where such a controversy is raised, must be cautious, and the party challenging the admissibility of the document must be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court

Court is also required to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case

So, once a promissory note has been marked as an exhibit and the trial has proceeded along the footing that the promissory note is made an exhibit, and has been used by the parties in the examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, then section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, will come into operation

In the present case as the promissory note had been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it was not open to the Trial Court to exclude it from consideration while writing the final judgment, nor to the appellate Court

Admission of the document in terms of section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, cannot be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction

Appeal was dismissed.

Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899 provides that when a document has once been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called into question at any stage of the suit or in proceedings, on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped

Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided there and then when the document is tendered in evidence

Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, admits the document in evidence and allows the parties to use it in examination and cross-examination, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed

It is, therefore, essential that parties to litigation, where such a controversy is raised, must be cautious, and the party challenging the admissibility of the document must be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court

Court is also required to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case

So, once a promissory note has been marked as an exhibit and the trial has proceeded along the footing that the promissory note is made an exhibit, and has been used by the parties in the examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, then Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, will come into operation

In the present case as the promissory note had been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it was not open to the Trial Court to exclude it from consideration while writing the final judgment, nor to the appellate Court

Admission of the document in terms of Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, cannot be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction

Appeal was dismissed.

Opinion of Police Officer who has investigated the case as to the guilt or innocence of an accused person was not a relevant fact and was, therefore, not admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as he was not an expert within the meaning of the term as used in Art. 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. [Para. 17 of the judgment]

When a party objected to the production of the certified copy of a document, as secondary evidence , the Court had to first consider and resolve the question: whether the loss of the original document had been proved, and if it found it so proved then to move on to examine the intrinsic worth of the secondary evidence produced

Failure on the part of the party tendering such evidence to prove the loss of the original would render the secondary evidence inadmissible.

In case, the foreign document fulfilled the essentials of a "Public Document" under sub-clause (iii) of clause (1) of Art. 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 then a certified copy thereof would constitute "secondary evidence" within the contemplation of clause (f) of Art. 76

However, special conditions had been prescribed for the certified copy of the foreign public document to be admissible and proof of that document

Said conditions had been prescribed in clause (5) of Art. 89 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which in essence were that: first, the certified copy must have been issued by the legal keeper of the document; second, a certificate was to be provided on that certified copy by a notary public or Pakistan Consul/diplomatic agent under his seal to the effect that the copy was duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original; and third, the character of the document was proved according to the law of the foreign country.

Once the execution of a registered document was disputed, it did not remain a "Public Document" and became a "Private Document"; therefore, any form of its secondary evidence, including its certified copy, could not be produced in evidence to prove its existence, condition or contents without complying with the requirements of Art. 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Article 27 of Order of 1984 was a general principle enabling the Investigating Officer to record the same whereas Art. 28 was merely an exception

As a general rule evidence not forming part of the transaction was not admissible whereas Arts. 27 & 28 were exceptions to the said general principle by laying down a rule qua admissibility of those facts which might not be tendered in evidence to prove it but were relevant to prove the status of mind of the person committing it

Guilt, intent, knowledge, negligence, malice etc., and intentions qua these conditions would be admissible as it was provided under Art. 27 of the Order of 1984

Article 27 of the Order of 1984 had extended the scope to meet the question qua the existence of a person's state of mind or bodily feeling and all these facts and their existence in the state of affairs became relevant.

Contention that Bank statements did not bear signature of concerned officials and seal of Bank therefore such statements were not admissible

Landlady's counsel referred to Art.87 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, regarding certified copies of public record

Held, Bank statement was admissible as certified copy under S.8 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and not under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Such certified copy did not require seal of Bank, because Bank statement was not a public record but as per provisions of Art.86 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was a private document.

Confession before the police was inadmissible in evidence in normal cases but in cases of terrorism, S. 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had made such a confession before the police conditionally admissible

Condition placed by the said section upon admissibility of a confession before the police was that there must be some other evidence, including circumstantial evidence, which must reasonably connect the accused person with the alleged offence before such confession was accepted by a court worthy of any consideration.

Requirements for admissibility of an audio tape or video in evidence before a court of law and the mode and manner of proving the same before the court stated.

Inadmissible documents cannot be taken into consideration for any purposes if those documents do not qualify the test of primary as well as secondary evidence under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Opinion of the Police qua innocence or otherwise of accused, was inadmissible in evidence.

Evidence in DVD cassette/video recording, produced in Trial Court, was admissible in evidence.

Seniority list issued by the Government appended with the Memorandum of appeal in the Service Tribunal was attested by the Advocate General, but not by the officer concerned who had the custody of the original document

Effect

Rule 7(e) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1976 showed that memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of order

Photostat copy of a document was not admissible unless the officer having the custody of original document certified the same to be true copy

In the presence of clear statutory provisions no other interpretation was permissible

Under Art.87 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, every public officer having the custody of a public document shall give a person on demand on payment of the legal fee, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it was true copy of such document or part thereof and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and official title and shall be sealed

Seniority list issued by the Government appended with the appeal in the Service Tribunal and attested by the Advocate General was not a "certified true copy" under Art.87(2) and did not fulfil the requirement of R.7(e) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1976

Copy appended with the memorandum of appeal was not a certified true copy of original seniority list, whereas, it was only a photocopy which was not admissible in evidence

Appeal filed in the Service Tribunal without appending the certified copy of the order was not competent, therefore, it was liable to be dismissed on this sole ground

Appeal filed in the Service Tribunal in violation of R.7(e) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1976 was incompetent

Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Irrespective of the fact that the Promissory note produced by the plaintiff in evidence was insufficiently stamped, it was neither challenged by the defendant in his written statement nor an issue was framed in regard to it

Insufficiently stamped promissory note was admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit without objection, thus it could not be discarded on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped

Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1881 debarred the defendant from calling in question the admissibility of such a Promissory Note on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Irrespective of the fact that the Promissory note produced by the plaintiff in evidence was insufficiently stamped, it was neither challenged by the defendant in his written statement nor an issue was framed in regard to it

Insufficiently stamped promissory note was admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit without objection, thus it could not be discarded on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped

Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1881 debarred the defendant from calling in question the admissibility of such a Promissory Note on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Newspaper clippings could not be used either in favour of the prosecution or defence unless author of the same was examined in court as a witness. Muhammad Ashraf Khan v. The State and another 1996 SCMR 1747 rel.

Such clippings could not be considered at bail stage and could only be proved in a way required by the law of evidence/Qanun-e-Shahadat, Illustration.

Essential pre-conditions stated.

Pro note is liable to be stamped under Art.49 of Stamp Act, 1899 and by virtue of amendment made by Punjab Finance Act, 1995, stamp of an amount of Rs.100 is payable if amount exceeds Rs.500,000

Provision of proviso (a) to S.35 of Stamp Act, 1899, is curative and covers situation according to which if any instrument is not stamped or insufficiently stamped would be admitted in evidence on payment of penalty

Payment of stamp duty is a matter between a citizen and the State and an adversary cannot be permitted to capitalize on a technicality which otherwise is not fatal to suit.