Shafi Muhammad V. Sessions Judge, Lasbela at Hub and 3 others,

PCrLJ 2020 711Balochistan High CourtCriminal Law2020

Bench: Abdul Hameed Baloch

Share on WhatsApp
2020 P Cr. L J 711 [Balochistan] Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Abdul Hameed Baloch, JJ SHAFI MUHAMMAD ---Petitioner Versus SESSIONS JUDGE, LASBELA AT HUB and 3 others ---Respondents Constitutional Petition No. 765 of 2019, decided on 12th September, 2019. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 265 -F(6) & (7) ---Defense evidence, adducing of ---Power of court ---Scope ---Trial Court has to receive defense evidence if so opted to adduce ---Word 'shall' cannot be termed as discretion of Trial Court ---Trial Court can only refuse application for production of documents as evidence when it considers that application is for purpose of vexation or delay or defeating ends of justice. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 265- F(6) & (7) ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10- A---Defense evidence--- Production of documents ---Accused was aggrieved of dismissal of his application for producing additional documentary evidence by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court ---Validity --- Authentici ty 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. Muhammad Ibrahim Lehri for Petitioner. Muhammad Younas, APG for the State. Date of hearing: 4th September, 2019. JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. ---This Constitutional Petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constit ution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ("the Constitution") against the orders dated 14.03.2019 and 21.06.2019 (impugned orders) respectively passed by the Judicial Magistrate -II Hub (trial Court) and the Sessions Judge, Lasbela at Hub (Revisional Court ) with the following prayers: "It is, therefore respectfully prayed that, after calling record from both the learned trial court as well as learned appellate Court and after perusal of the same the orders impugned may kindly be set aside and the learned respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to allow the application of petitioner/accused for verification of attendance sheet dated 13 -11-2017 as defence evidence, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Brief facts leading to file the instant peti tion are that the petitioner filed an application before the trial court for issuing notice/summon to the representative of Gatron Company for verification of attendance sheet of accused/petitioner. The trial court rejected the application and revision fil ed thereon met with the same fate. Hence this petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the available record. Section 265- F(6), Cr.P.C. being relevant is reproduced here under: "If the accused, or any one of several a ccused, says that he means to adduce evidence, the Court shall call on the accused to enter on his defence and produce his evidence." According to above mentioned section, learned trial Court shall receive the defence evidence, if so opted to adduce. The word "shall" cannot be termed as discretion of the learned trial Court rather some serious obligation casts upon learned trial Court to afford opportunity to the accused petitioner to adduce his defence evidence as cited above. 4. Perusal of record reveals that statement of petitioner/accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. by the trial court, whereby question No.7 was put to the petitioner/accused as "Do you want to produce evidence in defence" but no answer of petitioner/accused has been written, therefore the petitioner filed application along with attendance sheet for calling the representative of the Gatron Company with attendance sheet, which clearly depicts the willingness of the petitioner to adduce evidence in his defence, but the courts bel ow have straightaway declined the request. 5. The trial Court can only refuse the application for production of documents as evidence when it considers that the application has been made for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice . Section 265/F(7), Cr.P.C. being relevant is reproduced as under: "If the accused or any one or several accused, after entering on his defence, applies to the Court to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for examination or the production of any document or other thing, the Court shall issue such process unless it considers that the application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice such ground shall be recorded by the Court in writing." 6. The bare reading of impugned order reveals that ground /reason rendered for refusal to adduce defence evidence to the present petitioner as envisaged under section 265/F(7), Cr.P.C. is not tenable for the reasons that the authenticity of the attendance she et would be decided after recording the statement of representative of the Gatron Company, therefore, order for refusal to that extent is illegal and without lawful authority. 7. While refusing to receive defence evidence of the petitioner the trial Court has committed an illegality and has also failed to provide fair trial to the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 10(A) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In view of above circumstances, this Court comes to the conclusion that se rious illegality has been committed by the courts below while passing the impugned orders dated 14.03.2019 and 21.06.2019. Consequently, the Constitution Petition is accepted and the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are set -aside. The trial cour t is directed to call the representative of Gatron Company with the attendance sheet. MH/103/Bal. Petition allowed.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Re-Investigation can be permitted under special circumstances

PLJ 2020 · Balochistan High Court · 2020

Importance of 342 Statement in a Criminal Trial

PLJ 2018 SC 453 · Balochistan High Court · 2018

Prosecution must establish that chain of custody was unbroken, unsuspicious, indubitable, safe and secure

PLJ 2018 SC (Cr.C.) 90 · Balochistan High Court · 2018

Domicile and Residence Certificate are different

PLJ 2013 · Balochistan High Court · 2013

Pakistan - The Registration Act 1908

Balochistan High Court · 2012