Production of Documents

No bar existed to produce a document, especially when a particular question is asked by the defence to witness regarding the production of the same before the police during investigation

One may visualize a situation in which valuable documents may have been omitted to be placed on record by the Investigating Officer during investigation and yet in the interest of justice they may be admitted during trial

Mechanism of the Courts and procedure is only intended to advance the justice.

Under Art. 18 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the Court cannot refuse to admit the documents which are relevant for decision of the case

Parties, in view of O. XIII, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., are required to attach with plaint all the documents on which reliance is placed, whereas there is no corresponding provision in Criminal Procedure Code for placing any embargo on the powers of the Court to receive any document at belated stage provided it is relevant under Art. 18 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Accused, in a trial under S. 489-F, P.P.C., objected to the complainant's exhibition of certain original documents during his evidence, copies whereof had been provided to the police during the course of investigation

Magistrate sustained the objection and discarded the documents which formed part of the evidence

Complainant filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, which was allowed

Held, that the police authorities ought to have taken the original bank receipts or at least complainant ought to have provided them during the course of investigation, however, even if the same was not done and subsequently during the course of trial the original documents were produced in evidence, there was no impediment in law which barred the prosecution from doing so

By virtue of Art. 18 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, any evidence which proved the fact and issue was to be allowed by the Court

Mere admissibility of document in evidence did not necessarily prove it

Method to prove a document was altogether distinct from adducing it in evidence

Trial Court could not have discarded the documents

Revisional Court had rightly explained the position of law and no exception could be taken thereto

Writ petition was dismissed.

Trial Court is empowered to call for any document for the purpose of trial under S. 94 of Cr.P.C. read with Arts. 158 & 161 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, but any document does not include judicial record of a court

On the analogy of O. XIII, R. 10, C.P.C., there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, for summoning of judicial record by the court; only certified copies can be produced as secondary evidence as ordained in Art. 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Accused was aggrieved of dismissal of his application for producing additional documentary evidence by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Authenticity of document in question was to be decided after recording statement of defense witness

Order for refusal was illegal and without lawful authority and Trial Court committed illegality while refusing to receive defense evidence of accused

Trial Court also failed to provide fair trial to accused as guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution

High Court set aside orders passed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court as a serious illegality was committed by courts below

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Rationale of such principle was when a person loses the higher proof, then such person may offer the next best proof in his / her power

So long as higher or superior evidence was within possession of a person, or may be reached by such person, then no inferior proof in relation to the same may be given

Article 76(c) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was designed only for protection of person who in spite of his / her best efforts was unable from circumstances beyond his / her control able to place before the court primary evidence as required by law

Article 76(c) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was not intended to be used for benefit of person who deliberately or with sinister motives refused to produce document which was in his / her possession, power or control

Party tendering secondary evidence must prove existence and execution of such document directly if possible or presumptively where not and then establish its loss either by admission of the adversary or by proof that it could not be found after diligent search

Sufficiency of search necessary to let in secondary evidence was preliminary question for a court which would vary according to nature of document itself, the custody it was in, and all surrounding circumstances of particular matter before a court

However, it was not necessary for party to show or prove exact mode and time of such loss.

Petitioners filed application for production of documents, which was dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that documents were filed at belated stage

Revision petition filed by petitioners was also dismissed by District Judge

Validity

Held, on remand of the matter, after joining of Mukhtiarkar as party and amendment of the issues, if the petitioners intended to produce fresh documents for determination of their rights, they could not be prevented from doing so, such prevention under the pretext that application was filed at belated stage obviously amounted to denial of fair trial for determination of their rights and obligations, which was guaranteed by Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Orders passed by Trial Court and revisional court were set aside.

Provision of O. XIII, R. 2, C.P.C. are to be construed liberally, and delay in producing documents by itself is not a good ground for refusal.

Order XIII, R. 1, C.P.C. caters a situation, wherein, a party to suit has filed documents before the court and subsequently wants to bring and add some other documents, which initially have not been provided in the list of documents filed in terms of the said rule

Order XIII, R. 2, C.P.C. enables the court to even consider the documents, which though were not initially in the list of documents filed before the court but are being brought subsequently on record through an application

Court is empowered, if any good cause was shown to its satisfaction, to allow and bring such documents on record.

Order XIII, R. 2, C.P.C. is an exception to O. XIII, R. 1, C.P.C., and the same is to be liberally construed in that the permission to file documents after hearing in a case has commenced, should be granted as an exception, rather than as a rule, but not so if hearing has not commenced.

Where rule of exclusion apply and the documents could not be filed without leave of the Court leave was not to be ordinarily refused, it would be erroneous to assume that there was no discretion left with the court

Court has the discretion which must be allowed to be exercised in each case in the light of the peculiar facts of the case before the court.

Petitioner, during pendency of appeal, filed application under O.XI, R.14, C.P.C., for production of certain documents, which was dismissed by Appellate Court

Validity

Remedy sought by the petitioner through application was quite different from the spirit and import of law (O.XI, R.14, C.P.C.)

Said law provided for the remedy at the stage of "discovery and inspection" as was evident from the Heading of O.XI, C.P.C.

Said stage had passed long ago

Remedy sought through the application was vague, as applicant had sought just directions for production of two documents referred therein and nothing else

Mere production of the documents, would not serve any purpose of either of the parties

Impugned order being correct in all respects, petition was not fit to be admitted for regular hearing.

Court under O.XI, R.14, C.P.C., at any time during pendency of the suit, could order the production of the documents in possession or power of any party, if such documents related to the matter in question

Documents sought to be produced in the case, appeared to have relevancy to the points in question, on which the issues were already framed in the court

No cogent reason was available to reject the prayer of the plaintiff, specially when no prejudice would be caused to the defendant party on production of the documents in question, together with the affidavit on oath as the possession of those documents, except one, was also not denied by the defendant party.

Suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration, possession," partition, mesne profits and permanent injunction claiming therein that the plaintiff and her brother-in-law had purchased the joint property and were in possession of the same

Disputed property became evacuee property after enactment of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 and was transferred in the name of plaintiff's brother-in-law after payment of the consideration

Single Judge of the High Court dismissed suit of the plaintiff

Photocopies of documents produced by plaintiff were objected to by defendants and evidence of the plaintiff was recorded by commissioner. on the ground that the documents produced by the plaintiff were neither filed with the plaint nor were produced along with the affidavit in evidence-Plaintiff had neither filed the documents along with the plaint nor any list of documents was annexed with the plaint and affidavit-in-evidence

Plaintiff could not be allowed to produce the documents at a belated stage without the permission of the court

Judgment delivered by single Judge was based on proper appreciation of law

Intra Court Appeal filed by plaintiff was dismissed.

Where a party seeks to rely upon a document which is in the possession/control of the party entering the witness-box, the recourse may be had to the provisions of Arts.76, 77 & 159 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, calling upon the party through notice to produce the same

If notice is not complied with, the requisite essentials for adducing secondary evidence by producing copy of such document becomes available unless it is privileged or classified document.

Leave granted to consider whether an accused person can be directed to produce documents which would incriminate him in a case pending against him before a Court

Appellant having agreed to produce documents available with him, examination of plea that accused should not be compelled to incriminate himself, not necessary

Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Facts of case calling for examination of question whether case in circumstances not a "case decided" and whether High Court- powerless to see magnitude of wrong done to plaintiff -petitioner and violated relevant principle-Leave to appeal granted.

Production of Documents Duty of counsel explained.