SUBHAN ALLAH vs State Ss — 2023 PLD 578 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SUBHAN ALLAH VS State Ss. 172 & 94---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 158 & 161---Police Rules, 1934, Chap. XXII, Rr. 48, 70 & 72---Diary of proceedings in investigation---Police registers---Whether privileged documents---Application for summoning of different registers from the police station was dismissed solely on the ground that registers requested to be summoned were privileged documents under S. 172, Cr.P.C---Validity---Requested registers were a complete record of all events which taken place at the police station---Thus, it should record not only the movements and activities of all Police Officers but also visits of outsiders, whether officials or non-officials, coming or brought to the police station for any purpose whatsoever---Register II was a station dairy---Register No. XIX contained the details of every article placed in the storeroom and removed therefrom---Register No. XXI was a bound book of road certificates, which were issued for a variety of purposes---Registers requested to be summoned were public documents and with no stretch of the imagination were covered by the prohibition contained under S. 172, Cr.P.C. as misunderstood by the Trial Court---Petitioner was standing trial for keeping explosive material in his possession and he was allegedly arrested along with his co-accused with explosive material in their possession---All the abovementioned police registers were not only relevant but also necessary for the just decision of the case---Thus, there was no legal provision available on the statute books to consider those police registers as privileged---Purpose of a fair trial was to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice---For that purpose, the Trial Court was fully equipped with all the necessary powers under Cr.P.C. and Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Role of a Trial Court should not be of a silent spectator, rather a participatory role should be played to ensure that truth must be arrived at---Very purpose of a fair trial would be defeated if the petitioner was not provided a fair opportunity to prove his innocence---Under S. 94, Cr.P.C. read with Arts. 158 & 161 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, wide powers had been conferred upon the Court to summon any document or thing if the production of that document was desirable and necessary for the purpose of the trial---Said provisions were enabling provisions of law which were aimed at arming the Court to ensure the production of any document or thing to arrive at a just decision---Sound role of construction was that procedural enactments should be construed liberally and in such a manner as to render the substantive rights effective---Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the Trial Court was directed to summon the registers as requested by the petitioner.

SUBHAN ALLAH vs State Ss — 2023 PLD 578 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD