Documentary Evidence

Documentary material cannot be treated as legally proved merely because it has been exhibited, particularly where mode of proof remains defective.

When a document which is the foundation of claim of a party is never produced in evidence, such document remains wholly unproved and mere reference (to it) during cross-examination cannot substitute the strict proof required by law.

If a document is produced as evidence but is only categorized as "marked" or "identified" such document cannot be considered valid evidence as mandatory requirement of law has not been fulfilled

In case of non-compliance of any mandatory requirement, it is the person presenting such documents, who has to face the brunt of non-compliance.

Absence of a formal exhibit marking doesn't necessarily mean that the document cannot be considered as evidence, provided other evidentiary requirements are met.

Notification of appellant was set aside by Election Tribunal and respondent was declared as returned candidate after accepting his election petition

Validity

Documents and evidence produced by respondent fell under the category of exhibited documents, as those were tendered and produced as evidence in Election Tribunal

Document so produced were duly admitted by Election Tribunal as evidence without any objection and had become part of judicial record

Election Tribunal, after detailed scrutiny, pointed out substantial discrepancies which were result of manipulation and tampering in Form 45 by the appellant with the connivance of Returning Officer and their staff which resulted in increase of votes in favour of appellant

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Election Tribunal as there was no illegality or procedural defect

Appeal was dismissed.

Respondents/plaintiffs sought de-exhibition of certain documents which were produced by petitioner/defendant in his evidence during proceedings under S. 12(2), C.P.C.

Trial Court allowed application of respondents/plaintiffs and de-exhibited the documents, which order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Objections with respect to admissibility of documents can be of two kinds: (i) document is inadmissible in evidence being irrelevant or not capable for being considered in evidence ("inadmissibility in evidence"); and (ii) objections directed towards mode of proof due to irregularity or insufficiency ("mode of proof")

If no objection is raised as to inadmissibility in evidence but just mode of proof, after the document has been marked as an exhibit, the principle of waiver for failing to raise objection as to formal validity can be attracted

Proper time for raising such objection as to formal validity or mode of proof is prior to marking a document as an exhibit or at the time when it is sought to be marked as an exhibit

Such objections should be taken at the earliest and once document has been tendered and marked as an exhibit, belated objection as to mode of proof is discouraged by Courts

High Court set aside orders of Trial Court marking the documents as exhibits without oath statement of advocate and the order to de-exhibit them and also set aside judgment of Lower Appellate Court

High Court noted that the petitioner/defendant could file suitable application to produce further evidence/documents or re-examination of any witness

High Court directed Trial Court to give chance to respondents/plaintiffs to cross-examine as to additional evidence, if produced

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Accused were charged for causing loss to Public Exchequer of an amount of Rs. 312.5 Million by revising the layout of the society, thus committing the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

Record showed that the original lay out plan was never exhibited in evidence or even seen by the Trial Court as admitted by Investigating Officer

Only an attested copy of the original lay out plan was exhibited

No reason was given as to why the prosecution was not able to exhibit the original lay out plan or even showed it to the Court and then return it as this was the usual practice

It was not known as to where the attested copy came from and its veracity remained unproven

Revised lay out plan was not exhibited at trial or even produced at Court for the Court to see

Not even an attested copy of the revised lay out plan was produced instead only an ordinary photo copy of the carbon copy was produced without any explanation as to why the original or even an attested copy of the revised lay out plan could not be produced

It was not known where the photocopy of carbon copy of the revised plan came from and its veracity also remained unproven

Under these circumstances said copy documents were inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Arts. 72 to 74 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and ought to have been excluded by the Trial Court from consideration

Thus both of those documents (copies of the original lay out plan and revised lay out plan) were inadmissible in evidence and were to be excluded from consideration as they remained unproven

Hence it was almost impossible to prove which areas were, if any, converted from amenity plots to commercial/residential plots or where they were relocated to within the society and whether it was in fact amenity plots which were sold to the beneficiary appellants

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Claim of the (insurance) petitioners (general store) was that they got loan facility from the Bank (HBL) for their business and on the requirements of the Respondent/Bank they got insured their properties and stock in the general store from respondent (insurance company); that they were entitled for a loss of Rs.945000/-suffered due to fire at their godown/building

Ground taken by the respondent (insurance company) was that they had no contract of insurance with the petitioners; that they sold the policy to the Respondent /Bank who had not filed any petition against them, thus, the present petition was incompetent

Validity

Relevant exhibited policy documents showed the name of insured as the concerned Bank (HBL) as mortgagees while the petitioners (M/s Ijaz Brothers General Store) were shown as mortgagors

It was evident that said agreement was tripartite in which the loan of the Bank was secured and the stock of general store items and building of shop belonging to the insured under lien were insured

Admittedly, the insurance claim was made by the Petitioners (M/s Ijaz Brothers), which was the affected party in the tripartite agreement

Thus, the claim of the petitioners could not be rejected on the ground that they were not party in the insurance contract

However, the insured description mentioned in the copy of the relevant primary cover note (having been produced as Mark-B) showed that temporary fire cover note was valid only for 30 days and that the building of house and stock of general merchandise were only insured and no separate description of shop or godown was given

Record (exhibited documents) revealed that after expiry of the cover note, the petitioners got regular insurance policy for the year 2008-2009 and thereafter, they got insurance policy from 30.06.2009 to 30.06.2010

Incident of fire on 19.04.2010 in the godown was not denied but the description of the insured property in the insurance policy showed that only the building of the shop and the stock lying in it were insured

Under Art. 102 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the documentary evidence excluded the oral evidence, therefore, when the godown was not insured in the contract of insurance policy, the claim regarding the same could not be granted

However, the amount of Rs.45000/- already offered by the respondents (insurance company) to the petitioners would remain intact

Insurance petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Claim of the plaintiffs was that the suit-land was purchased by their father from defendants vide sale deed in the year 1965; which land was in their possession and they had constructed houses thereupon but defendants were flexing their muscles to interfere into their peaceful possession in the garb of wrong entries in the revenue record

Plea of the defendants was that the sale-deed-in-question had been tampered as instead of 4 kanals and 9 marlas of land, 4 kanals and 19 marlas had been entered

Suit was concurrently decreed in favour of plaintiffs

Validity

Record revealed that the plaintiffs placed on record an original sale-deed dated 17.04.1965 having been tendered/exhibited in evidence which, inter alia, revealed that total 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land had been purchased and relevant mutation (No. 210) was also attested but inadvertently the acreage of purchased land in the mutation was entered as 4 kanals and 9 marlas; however , in the recent settlement, the entries in the revenue record had been corrected and total purchased land, was entered as 4 kanals and 19 marlas

Defendants had not denied the sale deed dated 17.04.1965 but their stance was that the sale deed had been tampered by the defendants however, no tampering had been found rather controversy created between the parties was only due to the wrong entry in mutation No. 210 which had been rectified subsequently during the recent settlement but defendants in garb of said wrong entry in mutation No.210 tried to take possession of land which had already been sold by their predecessors to the father of plaintiffs

As the plaintiffs had proved their stance that vide sale deed dated 17.04.1965 their father purchased 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land, they were in possession of the purchased land and defendants had no concern with the same land, thus the Courts below accurately decreed the suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents for perpetual injunction

No misreading, non-reading had been noticed in concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below

Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents / plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit property which had been mortgaged in favour of their predecessor-in-interest by non-Muslim evacuee owner

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit and appeal in favour of respondents / plaintiffs

Validity

All documentary evidence was produced on behalf of respondents/plaintiffs by their counsel in his statement

Documents relied upon should be produced in evidence by a party in its own statement so that the adverse party could have a fair opportunity to cross-examine the same

Documents produced by counsel of respondents / plaintiff lacked intrinsic value

High Court excluded such documents from consideration

Where a property, rightly or wrongly, is treated to be an evacuee property, such treatment of property can only be assailed through proceedings before Custodian of Evacuee Properties

Courts below did not take into consideration the evidence nor furnished any well-reasoned findings and committed misreading and non-reading of the evidence

Both the Courts below failed to apply correct law which was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was liable to be set-aside

High Court under S.115, C.P.C., has jurisdiction to interfere in perverse concurrent judgments and decrees of lower fora

Land in question was a public asset and Courts of law are custodian of public properties and public interest, and while dealing with matters relating to such properties/assets or interests, it is inalienable obligation of the Courts to be very careful and cautious and assure itself to the extent of certainty that no foul is being played with the State assets

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondents/ plaintiffs

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and permanent injunction against the respondent for his property measuring 01-kanal, 04-marlas against a consideration of Rs. 4,50,00,000/

Petitioner paid Rs. 52,50,000/- earnest money

Petitioner contended that he always remained ready to perform his part of obligation but the respondent refused to do the needful on his part

Trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner, however, amount of Rs.52,00,000/-received by the respondent from the petitioner, being not earnest money, was held liable to be returned by the respondent to the petitioner with an additional amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-, keeping in view the depreciation of money and increase in value of the property

Both the parties preferred separate appeals

Appeal of the respondent was dismissed but the appeal of petitioner was accepted with modification in the judgment that the petitioner shall be entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- from the respondent

Validity

In this case, from the side of petitioner total three witnesses were produced, whereas from the other side, only the respondent himself appeared as witness

Only one document was exhibited by petitioner in his statement, whereas the remaining documents were exhibited/marked through the statements of counsel for the parties and not through the testimonies of either witnesses of petitioner or respondent

Mere marking of a document as an exhibit would not dispense with requirement of proving the same and the same could not be exhibited unless it was proved

Documents not brought on the record through witnesses' testimonies could not be taken into consideration by the Court

In this regard, both the Courts below had failed to adopt the said procedure of law

In addition to that, the reading of documents in evidence without observing legal requirements of Art. 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would be illegal

Trial Court had totally travelled beyond its jurisdiction with regards to the recording of evidence with particular reference to the documentary evidence, therefore, civil revisions were allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments/ decrees of both the Courts below and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for a decision afresh after recording total evidence of the parties.

Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court on the basis of two documents produced by respondent / defendant which documents were never confronted to petitioner / plaintiff and the same were made part of record through statement of counsel

Validity

Disputed documents cannot be tendered in evidence through statement of counsel of the party producing the document

Reason for such restriction is that through such procedure opposing party becomes deprived to challenge authenticity of such document by way of cross-examination

Revisional jurisdiction is hedged in S.115, C.P.C. and though ordinarily concurrent findings of facts are not disturbed but such findings are neither sacrosanct nor it is an inflexible rule that despite observing material flaws, revisional court has to abdicate to exercise its jurisdiction

Judgments passed by two Courts below were not based on proper appraisal of evidence

Trial Court while dismissing suit of petitioner / plaintiff grossly misread the evidence

Lower Appellate Court while upholding judgment and decree of Trial Court committed material irregularity

High Court under S.115, C.P.C. was obliged and fully competent to correct such error in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

Once it was established on record that concurrent findings were fraught with legal infirmities, it had become bounden duty of court exercising revisional powers to curb and stifle such illegalities and material irregularities

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and suit was decreed in favour of petitioner / plaintiff

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Concept that documents cannot be admitted into evidence solely through statement of counsel during evidence is rooted in fundamental right to cross-examination, which is an essential aspect of adversarial legal system

Right to cross-examination allows opposing party to challenge veracity, authenticity and relevance of evidence presented, including documents

Admitting documents solely on the statements of counsel, compromises right of other party to cross-examine, which is not warranted by law

Trial Courts must ensure that all documentary evidence is subject to scrutiny of cross-examination to uphold principles of fairness and due process

Documents exhibited solely through statements of counsel without opportunity for cross-examination do not meet legal standards for admissibility of evidence

This ensures the integrity of judicial process and the rights of parties involved.

Documents relied upon should be produced in evidence by party in its own statement so that adverse party may have a fair opportunity to cross-examine authenticity or veracity of such documents

Documents produced in statement of counsel of party lack intrinsic value and they can validly be excluded from being taken into consideration.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for commission of offences of Qatl-i-amd, attempt to Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping and terrorism and was variously convicted with a maximum of imprisonment for life on four counts

Accused raised plea of alibi and produced official record of his travel history based on Integrated Border Management System database

Validity

Documentary evidence was largely in the form of official record, which was of particular relevance in establishing absence of accused from country as on the date of offence

Alibi of accused could not be said to be an afterthought or to have been contrived, nor could the documentary evidence produced in support of defence plea be dismissed as having been fabricated to unduly support the accused

Where alibi was not based on mere oral testimony, but was substantiated by documentary evidence, an objection that the plea was not raised at first stage was not of particular consequence

Single circumstance that had created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind as to the guilt of an accused entitled him to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Primary and best evidence was withheld by prosecution by not submitting original Environmental Protection Order and Original Compliance Status Report

Documents were to be proved by primary evidence under Art. 75 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 except the cases mentioned in Art. 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Prosecution withheld primary evidence and only produced photocopies of Environmental Protection Order and Compliance Status Report

Prosecutor failed to satisfy the Tribunal as to where were the original documents and why those were not produced

Photo copies were not admissible in evidence and prosecution did not prove its case in accordance with Art. 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of doubt and accused was acquitted of the charge

Complaint was dismissed, in circumstances.

Documentary evidence always takes preference over oral deposition as a man can tell a lie but a document cannot.

Petitioners claimed to be owners of plots allotted to them on the basis of registered documents and had sought vacant and physical possession from respondent Authorities

Validity

Documents relied upon by petitioners were not controverted or challenged by respondents through some subsequent official acts or documents

Every fact in its para-wise comments were denied by respondent authorities but without substantiating it with documentary evidence

All the documents so relied upon were in fact official record of respondent authorities

Presumption of genuineness and authenticity was attached to those documents, as envisaged in Arts. 90, 92 & 93 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, besides, Art. 129(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was also applicable to registered Lease Deed, Addenda Deed and the Acknowledgment of Possession Order in respect of the subject land

Petitioners were deprived from using and enjoying their respective plots

Fundamental rights of petitioners to own, use and enjoy their property, as envisaged in Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution, were violated

High Court declared that petitioners were lawful and bona fide allottees of their respective plots

High Court directed respondent authorities to immediately vacate entire subject land and to hand over possession of the same to Karachi Development Authority, which would give possession to lawful and bona fide allottees/petitioners, after fulfilling codal formalities

High Court further directed that if subject land was required by respondent authorities or any other Government functionary, then the same should be acquired in accordance with law, by paying market value to petitioners

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

For Court to look into document for deciding its probative or evidentiary value, it is necessary to tender the document legally first

When opposite party objects to tendering i.e. mode of proof of a document in evidence, it is duty of Court to decide it immediately and not defer it

When objection is not on existence or execution of document itself but on the contents, its evidentiary value, the fact it seeks to convey and there is a chance that primary or secondary evidence may be led to prove its contents, production of such document in evidence cannot be denied.

Article 73 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, explains evidence to mean the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court, whereas under Art. 74, secondary evidence means and includes certified copies; copies made from the original by mechanism processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copies; copies made from or compared with the original; counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them and oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it

Article 75 clearly and in unambiguous terms states that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the circumstances as mentioned in the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Exceptional circumstances in which secondary evidence can be admissible are contained in Art. 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984; when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it; when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; when due to the volume or bulk of the original, copies thereof have been made by means of microfilming or other modern device; when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily moveable; when original is a public document as provided in Art. 85; when original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by the Order or by any other law; when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and when original document forming part of a judicial record is not available and only certified copy thereof is available

Article 77 states that secondary evidence of the contents of the documents as mentioned in Art. 76 would not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is or to his advocate such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law, and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances.

Court must not confuse admissibility of document into record for consideration during trial with proof of such document or weight and relevance to be attached to it in support of a claim

Proof of a document and weight to be accorded to it is to be determined by Court after recording of evidence while pronouncing judgment.

Practice of allowing witnesses to adduce documentary evidence during their examination-in-chief as primary mode of producing documentary evidence is in breach of provisions of O.V, O.VII and O.XIII, C.P.C.

Such practice cannot be countenanced and it is only upon showing "good cause" for non-production of a document at the first instance (as required by O.V and O.VII C.P.C.) that the Court may allow production of such document at a later stage in accordance with O.XIII, R.2, C.P.C.

Dispute was with regard to permission granted by Trial Court to produce prosecution witness whose only designation was mentioned in calendar of witnesses and statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded by investigating officer

Validity

Held, it was not the document which was to play its role in a case but the linchpin to decide case was always legal and intrinsic value and worth of the contents of the document which were adjudged by the Courts of law according to Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Not necessary that the official, who was called to produce a particular document in his custody was cited in calendar of witnesses by his family name

Such was sufficed if the witness was listed for prosecution as its witness through his designation

Custodian of records come and go who do not have permanent postings at particular stations

Investigating officer could collect any document from any person under S. 19(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, if the same had relevancy with the case

It was not necessary that statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. of producer of the document be recorded

Investigating officer, under S. 19(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, could examine a person acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case

Only in the latter situation, recording of statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was necessary while in the former situation no legal obligation lied on investigating officer to resort to legal provision under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

When a piece of evidence/document sought to be tendered is admittedly inadmissible, irrespective of mode of proof of such document, production of such document in evidence has to be denied

To hold or to view that a given piece of evidence is inadmissible, (its contents cannot be accepted or admitted to have probative value even if it is taken on record) has to involve presence of predetermination of such fact.

Public document is presumed to be genuine and its attested or certified copy is relevant and admissible in evidence unless contrary is proved rebutting such presumption completely

No requirement of law exists to examine author or attesting witness to prove existence of a public document

Prosecution was not obliged to examine any such person in proof of an official document

Document in investigation is collected/obtained under a seizure memo and provision of S.94, Cr.P.C. is relevant in such respect, which empowers investigating officer to seize or collect a document required for investigation purpose

Document purporting to be record of memorandum of evidence can be produced under Art. 91 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in Court by a witness and the same has a presumption of genuineness attached to it

To appreciate a document in a criminal case as an admissible piece of evidence could not be identified with regime applied to a document for such purpose in civil case in respect of a private document

Claim of a party in civil proceedings was decided on preponderance of probability and all that was necessary in a civil case was to show that proof adduced in support of a fact was such that it could make a prudent mind act upon it

In criminal case, prosecution had to prove guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and his conviction could be recorded by Court only when it was satisfied that possibility of his innocence, on the basis of evidence adduced against him was completely ruled out

High Court declined to interfere in production of photostat copies of record during trial

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Documentary evidence can be rebutted only through documentary evidence or through concrete, tangible and credible evidence of an extraordinary nature.

Principles of law of evidence as to what material was "relevant"; when it was "admissible"; how it was to be "proved"; and, how its "evidentiary value" was determined stated.

Appellant was alleged to be tenant in demise premises against which ejectment order was passed on the basis of documents produced by respondent / landlord, whereas relationship of tenant and landlord was denied by the appellant/tenant

Validity

Producing of documents and proof of documents were two different subjects

Documents could be produced in evidence subject to proof as required under Art.78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Neither the person who signed the documents was examined nor it was proved through any other evidence to suggest that documents were issued by the person mentioned in the document

Documents which were relied upon by Rent Controller were not proved in accordance with law, therefore, the same could not be taken into consideration

High Court set aside the ejectment order which was based on the documents not part and parcel of record and due process of evidence was not adopted, resultantly matter was remanded to Rent Controller for decision afresh

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

When a party intends to rely on a document it should prove the same through witness.

Documents could be produced in evidence that was always subject to proof as required under Art. 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Forensic expert verified signature of accused on the basis of documents produced by NAB, which were obtained from Banks

Accused persons were not produced before forensic experts for taking their signatures for verification, no signature of accused allegedly mentioned in agreement produced by prosecution witness was sent to handwriting expert as required under Art. 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons as prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Preparation of a forged document itself was an offence but production thereof in court proceedings with a view to prejudice the right and entitlement of a rightful person, made such act grave and courts must take appropriate actions whenever such an act surfaced, as such actions not only resulted delaying object of timely justice but also encouraged such actions.

Presumption of truth is attached to documentary evidence and not to oral evidence.

Admitting photocopy of a document in evidence and reading the same in evidence without observing legal requirements of Art. 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would be illegal.

Such document, without formal proof, could not be relied upon.

Court lean favourably in granting bail, when the case is dependent upon documentary evidence and the same is in possession of the prosecuting agency.

Accused was alleged to have drawn a cheque in favour of the complainant, which on presentation before the concerned Bank was dishonoured

First Information Report was registered after delay for which no explanation was mentioned

Case against accused was entirely reliant on documentary evidence which admittedly was in the possession of the prosecution and clearly there was no possibility of the accused tampering with the same

Petition for grant of bail was allowed and the accused was admitted to post-arrest bail.

Presumption of truthly always attached with the documentary evidence and not to oral evidence.

Complainant was aggrieved of acquittal of accused by Trial Court just after framing of charge and without recording of any evidence

Plea raised by complainant was that Trial Court acquitted the accused without deciding his application for placing documentary evidence on record

Validity

Charge was mainly hinged upon record but Trial Court instead of entertaining application of complainant or deciding the same in either way on its own merits, straightaway proceeded to acquit the accused

Order of acquittal by Trial Court was transgression of authority and did not warrant exceptional treatment for want of exceptional circumstances

Acquittal in terms of S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. or for that matter S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. could not be equated with acquittal earned after full length trial and recording of evidence

Principle of double presumption of innocence was not attached to such order of acquittal

High Court set aside order of acquittal and remanded the case to Trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Plaintiff who was transferred to the company (PTCL) pursuant to S.36(2) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996 sought recovery of arrears due during his service as he refused to accept "Voluntary Separation Scheme" as introduced by the defendant company

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings and dismissed the suit

Validity

All the documents were issued by defendant company and original thereof could not be in the possession of plaintiff

All marked documents except an agreement between defendant and Government of Pakistan, were admitted by witness of defendant company during his cross-examination

Such documents which were expressly admitted by defendant company could not have been questioned at appellate stage

High Court was not precluded / prevented from taking into account the admitted documents, which were available on record as "Marked Documents" and most of the documents were part and parcel of official record of defendant company

When the documents were presented by plaintiff during his examination-in-chief, there was not a single objection from the other side upon presentation / placing of those documents on record

Any office order or document issued by defendant company which adversely affect any privilege, facility for which plaintiff was entitled, had no force in the light of saving clause i.e. S.36(2) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside findings of Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Truth of contents of documents cannot be proved by merely producing same for inspection of court within purview of Art. 2(c)(ii) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Documents upon which a party relies at first be placed before court and then to prove same by calling witnesses.

If primary evidence of any document was not produced in terms of Art. 75 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the photocopy could not be considered as a valid proof of such document.

Prosecution was bound to prove documentary evidence in a manner required under Arts. 72, 73, 75 & 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 where contents of documents have to be proved independently.

Plea raised by insurance company was that documents were not duly exhibited but were merely marked and relied upon while rendering final judgment

Validity

Marked documents declared that respondent was permanently wheel-chair-bounded and had permanent tetraplegia

Mere failure of a party to get exhibited a document produced voluntarily in evidence by the adverse party formally, would not make any difference

If the document was necessary for just decision of the case, same should be summoned by the Court and treated as evidence in the matter without any formalities

Insurance company was holding custody of marked documents and had withheld the same malafidely which tantamount to withholding of the best evidence without any reason and it was legally presumed that had that document produced, same would have been used against Insurance company, as enunciated under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Insurance Tribunal as its findings were in consonance with available record and did not suffer from any perversity, illegality, misreading and non-reading of material evidence

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Documents were taken on record against cost imposed on party during proceedings resultantly claim was dismissed by Insurance Tribunal

Plea raised by plaintiff was that without formal proof of documents same could not be relied upon

Validity

Any document could not be treated as proof merely on the ground that it was admitted in evidence by the Court or by the party without any objection

Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 must be strictly complied with and if documents were not proved under Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 then same could not be even made basis for dismissal or acceptance of claim of plaintiff

High Court declared the process of evidence adopted by Insurance Tribunal as illegal and not maintainable in the eyes of law

Judgment passed by Insurance Tribunal was set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Secondary evidence, could only be permitted, when the original of the document was not available, or the same could not be produced due to unavoidable circumstances

Nothing was on record to show that the Bank authorities sought any permission from the court to produce secondary evidence

Secondary evidence produced without seeking permission from the court, had no evidentiary value.

Document which was confronted to the witness and exhibited should only be considered in evidence.

Criminal breach of trust by servant or clerk, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document

Bail before arrest, refusal of

Documentary evidence

Scope

Complainant had alleged that accused, in connivance with co-accused persons, committed manipulation of accounts, misappropriation of funds in millions of rupees

Accused was Chief Financial Officer/Company Secretary who used to sign all the cheques/ vouchers pertaining to accounts of the company as co-signatory

Audit report clearly depicted fraud, forgery and embezzlement of funds of company by fraudulent means

Accused admitted in bail application that he used to counter sign around fifty to one hundred cheques pertaining to company bank account every day which prima facie connected accused with the alleged crime

Documentary evidence also supported case of complainant

Recovery of laptop and other material i.e. cheques and payment vouchers was also prima facie showed involvement of accused in the alleged crime

Case of accused was not hit by prohibition contained in S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. but under given circumstances no extraordinary concession of bail before arrest could be extended to accused

Nothing was available on record which could suggest or indicate false implication of accused in the case

Accused had failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on part of complainant or police

Bail was refused accordingly.

No reliance could be placed on a document which was relied upon by one party in the proceedings and was denied by the other.

Defence plea, in the present case, was that weapon was actually handed over by the accused, a police official to some other police constable and thereafter it was found missing

If such was the situation then only fault of the accused was that he had not made proper entry in the record

Case against the accused rested upon documentary evidence and if he was reinstated in service after converting the major penalty into minor penalty, case of bail before arrest had been made out

Ad interim pre arrest bail granted to the accused was confirmed accordingly.

Using as genuine a forged document and refusing to furnish information, which a person ought to disclose or furnish, national status of accused

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Documentary evidence

Accused alleged the documents to be genuine

Prosecution took plea that documents were forged

Cases entirely based upon documentary evidence

Genuineness and falsehood of such documentary evidence could be determined by the Trial Court after trial

Case of accused was of further inquiry

Bail was granted in circumstances.