Citation Name  

: 2015  YLR  782     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : MAHDI HASSAN alias GHULAM ABBAS

  Side Opponent : State

S.302---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 133 & 140---Murder trial---Previous statement,

confronting with---Accused during cross-examination of prosecution witness wanted to confront him
with report made by him at police station but Trial Court disallowed such question---Validity---As the
report was lodged by that prosecution witness, therefore, he was the relevant person from whom
question pertaining to that report could be asked during cross examination, being the person who
lodged report in question---Contents of report in question fell within the ambit of "previous statement"
as mentioned in Art. 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and as it was official register and entries therein
were made in discharge of official duties, which if relevant concerning a fact in issue, could be used
and brought on record under Art. 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Trial Court erroneously disallowed
question by accused regarding filing of report in police station---Revision was allowed accordingly.

   

  Citation Name  : 2015  PCrLJ  26     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : MEHDI KHAN

  Side Opponent : State

S. 302---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.132 & 140---Qatl-i-amd---Cross-examination---Previous

statement, confronted with---Trial Court did not allow accused to confront complainant during cross-
examination with his previous statement---Validity---Defence side was not obligated to restrict its
cross-examination only to the extent of facts stated by witness in his examination-in-chief rather it had
a right to ask any question from witness to impeach his credibility as well as to bring true and relevant
facts on record which witness had either not brought on record or had deliberately concealed---
Evidentiary value of any such statement of witness was to be determined by Court at the time of final
judgment---Accused could not be denied to confront complainant with his previous statement---Trial
Court fell in error while refusing petitioner to confront complainant with his previous statement through
the order of Trial Court which was untenable and liable to set aside---High Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Trial Court---Revision was allowed in
circumstances.
    

  Citation Name  : 2013  PLD  8     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SARWAR

  Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AFZAL

Ss. 161, 162 & 439---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.140---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
S.302/34---Criminal trial---Word "shall" used in S. 162 Cr.P.C.---Scope---Previous statement,
confronting of---Principle---Statement before police---During trial, accused produced defence witness
who had appeared before police during investigation and his statement was also recorded under S.
161 Cr.P.C.---During cross-examination, complainant was not allowed to confront said defence witness
with his statement recorded earlier by Investigating Officer during investigation---Validity---Statement
recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C. could only be used by accused for such limited purpose and the same
could not be used for any other purpose--- Legislature used word "shall" for making absolute bar of
using such statement for any other purpose---Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was controlled
by S.162, Cr.P.C. and prohibition contained in S.162 Cr.P.C. could not be defeated---Statement under
S. 161, Cr.P.C. recorded by police could not be utilized as substantive evidence and it could only be
utilized under S.162 Cr.P.C. to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Art. 140 of Qanun-e-
Shahadat, 1984---When statement to be confronted was recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C., then rider of
S.162, Cr.P.C. would apply but Art. 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, being part of general law of
evidence had its own independent legal efficacy and application upon any other previous statement of
witness, which might have been made by him in some other judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative,
executive proceedings or inquiries or before such of the forums or even privately made through some
instrument i.e. agreement or affidavit, could be confronted to that person, if relevant, in any criminal
case, however subject to its proof--- High Court maintained order passed by Trial Court whereby
complainant was not permitted to confront defence witness with his earlier statement recorded under
S.161 Cr.P.C.---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

   

  Citation Name  : 2013  YLR  860     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAFI

  Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer Revenue

S.42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 85 & 140---Suit for declaration---Mutation alleged to have
been sanctioned by revenue staff illegally---Holding of inquiry proceedings against revenue staff
illegally---Holding of inquiry proceedings against revenue staff---Record of such inquiry proceedings
along with statements of revenue staff recorded therein summoned by plaintiff for confronting revenue
staff while appearing as wit-nesses---Objection that without summoning defendants/revenue staff as
witnesses, their statements recorded in inquiry proceeding could not be placed on record in suit---
Validity---Documents prepared by a public servant in discharge of his official duties for being public
documents would need not to be proved---Such documents/statements sought to be placed on record
by Record Keeper in his statement were public documents as same were executed by Inquiry Officer
at time of holding of inquiry in discharge of his official duties---Without bringing on record such
statements/documents, plaintiff would not be able to confront the same to defendants' witnesses at
time of recording their statements in suit---Such objection of defendants was overruled in
circumstances.

   

  Citation Name  : 2012  PCrLJ  1840     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : NIAZ AHMAD KHAN

  Side Opponent : KHALID PERVAIZ

Art.140---Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing---Under Art.140 of Qanun-e-

Shahadat, 1984, a witness could be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing
or reduced into writing; and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him, or
being proved, but, if it was intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the
writing could be proved, be called to those parts of it, which were to be used for contradicting him.

   

  Citation Name  : 2012  PCrLJ  614     QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

  Side Appellant : Mst. PERVEEN KOUSAR

  Side Opponent : SHAKIL AHMED

S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.140---Qatl-e-aind----Accused not allowed to confront

Investigating Officer with previous statements of witnesses and improvements made by them in
court---Trial Court had not allowed the accused to confront the Investigating Officer with the previous
statements of the witnesses and improvements made by them in their statements made in the court in
terms of Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Not allowing the accused to confront the Investigating
Officer during cross-examination with the said previous statements and not bringing on record the
contradictions made by the witnesses amounted to procedural defect and unfairness in trial resulting in
miscarriage of justice and serious prejudice to the accused---Impugned judgment was consequently
set aside and the case was remanded to Trial Court with the direction to re-examine the Investigating
Officer and provide an opportunity of cross-examination to accused in view of the observations of the
High Court strictly in accordance-with law.

   

  Citation Name  : 2012  PCrLJ  614     QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

  Side Appellant : Mst. PERVEEN KOUSAR

  Side Opponent : SHAKIL AHMED

Art. 140---Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing---Procedure detailed.

   

  Citation Name  : 2011  PLD  208     PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

  Side Appellant : DILAWAR KHAN

  Side Opponent : Mst. BADSHAH ZADI

Art. 140---Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing---Procedure---To prove the previous

statement of the party/witness, relying on such previous statement, writing of other party/witness
embodied in a document, should put that statement to him to give him opportunity to explain his
position---Without complying with requirements of Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, such previous
statement could not be used as legal evidence; and without complying the procedure laid down in said
Art.140, if a document was not confronted to a person, such document could not be used as legal
evidence.

   

  Citation Name  : 2011  SCMR  45     SUPREME-COURT

  Side Appellant : MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN

  Side Opponent : State

S.154---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 140 & 153---F.I.R.---Scope---F.I.R. carries great weight
and play a pivotal role in criminal case before its maker is examined in Court---Once its maker is
examined in Court, then F.I.R. loses its that much importance and is reduced to the position to the
extent to be used only to corroborate as provided under Art. 153 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, or
contradict its maker in the manner as required under Art. 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---F.I.R. is
neither a substantial piece of evidence nor conviction can be based on it in absence of evidence of its
maker in Court, thus no adverse inference can be taken in such case.

   

  Citation Name  : 2011  PLD  554     SUPREME-COURT

  Side Appellant : State
  Side Opponent : ABDUL KHALIQ

Ss. 161, 162 & 164---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 140 & 153---Use of previous statement of
witnesses before fact finding inquiry---Scope---Prosecution while confronting a prosecution witness
under Art.140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 with his previous statement may use any of his previous
 statements not necessarily those under Ss.161 & 164, Cr.P.C. without the proof of those at that time---
If the witness admits of having made such statement there is no need for the proof, but if it is denied,
then though the process of confronting him and recording the inconsistency may be completed by the
Court, whereas such material cannot be used against the prosecution, until and unless the confronted
statement is subsequently proved by the defence, as any disputed instrument---Statement under
S.161, Cr.P.C. should be strictly construed in consonance with S.162, Cr.P.C. and if those are signed
by the witnesses, such is an incurable defect and an illegality which vitiates the statement and it shall
not be that previous statement which is contemplated by the said provision, available for confrontation
in terms of Art.140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984
in a criminal matter is not totally and conclusively governed and regulated by the provisions of S.162,
Cr.P.C.; it may be so, when the statement to be confronted has. been recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.
that the rider of S.162, Cr. P. C. shall apply, but Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 being a part of
general law of evidence, has its own independent legal efficacy and application and any previous
statement of the witness, which may have been made by him in some other judicial, quasi judicial,
administrative, executive proceedings or inquiries or before such of the forums or even privately made
through some instrument i.e. agreement or an affidavit, can be confronted to him, if relevant, in any
criminal case, however, subject to its proof---Such statements can always be used by the defence for
impeaching the credibility of a witness under Art.153(3) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 as well.
Citation Name  : 2011  PCrLJ  1870     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM

  Side Opponent : C.P.O. RAWALPINDI

S. 154---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 140 & 153---F.I.R., value of---Scope---F.I.R. recorded
in consequence of receipt of information has an evidentiary value---F.I.R. may be used for the purpose
of contradiction under Articles 140 and 153 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

   

  Citation Name  : 2011  MLD  1993     PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

  Side Appellant : KHUSH DIL KHAN

  Side Opponent : Haji DILAWAR KHAN

 Arts. 48 & 140---Suit for recovery of amount on basis of entries made in Plaintiff's Khata alleged to be
signed by defendant---Proof---Such Khata was illegible and contained interpolations and over-writing---
Entries in such Khata were neither signed nor proved by its author---Plaintiff had neither summoned
defendant to confront him with his alleged signatures on such entries nor proved same by means of
expert evidence---Such entries would not be considered as legal proof for awarding decree in favour of
plaintiff---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

   

  Citation Name  : 2009  MLD  421     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : Mst. KALSOOM BIBI

  Side Opponent : DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAHAWALPUR

S. 164---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 140---Power of Magistrate to record statement and

confession---Scope and nature---Powers given to Magistrate under S.164, Cr.P.C. were of
discretionary nature and if such a statement was recorded by him it would become admissible in
evidence at the trial under Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, whereby the maker of the
statement, complainant or a witness, could exonerate or implicate a person with regard to commission
of an offence---Said discretion had to be exercised judiciously according to the facts and
circumstances of each, case and based upon good reason that the grant of such permission would
advance the cause of justice---If Magistrate, prima facie, would find that some mala fide was behind
seeking such permission, he was under no obligation to record the statement.

   

  Citation Name  : 2009  SCMR  759     SUPREME-COURT

  Side Appellant : Mirza MUHAMMAD INAYAT SARAF

  Side Opponent : Mst. NASIM AKHTAR

S. 42---Partition Act (IV of 1893), S.4---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.114 & 140---Constitution
of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Declaration of title---Estoppel, principle of---Applicability---Previous
suit---Effect---Partition of joint property---Plaintiff claimed to be one of the co-owners of disputed house
 on the ground that it was purchased by their father and sought partition of the same---One of the co-
owners executed registered gift deed regarding the house, in favour of his wife who onward sold the
house in favour of defendant vide registered sale deed, plaintiff assailed both the deeds as well---Trial
Court as well as Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit and appeal filed by plaintiff but
High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and passed
preliminary decree for partition of suit property---Validity---Record established, through copy of
previous plaint which was admittedly signed and verified by the co-owner, who had executed gift deed,
acknowledging their father as owner of disputed house---In view of such admission of the co-owner,
which document was confronted to him, he could not be allowed to make a somersault that the
admission was not binding upon him as he withdrew the suit---High Court had rightly come to the
conclusion that there was no evidence on record to show that the co-owner either purchased any
portion of the property or his mother transferred any portion to him---Judgment and decree passed by
High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity, rather it rectified the judgments and decrees passed
by two Courts below, as both proceeded contrary to evidence on record---Findings of High Court were
in accordance with evidence on record and no misreading and non-reading of record had been pointed
out---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by High Court---Leave to
appeal was refused.

   

  Citation Name  : 2009  YLR  1640     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN

  Side Opponent : ATTA ULLAH KHAN

Ss. 39 & 42---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 214 & 215---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17, 79
& 140---Suit for declaration and cancellation of gift---General power of attorney for sale of suit-land
executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant---Suit-land gifted by defendant in favour of his son and
nephew--Defendant's plea was that plaintiff had sold suit land after receipt of entire sale price from him
and had in lieu thereof executed General Power of Attorney---Proof---Plaintiff, while in cross-
examination, expressing ignorance regarding agreement of sale, had not been confronted with same
and his signatures thereon---Marginal witnesses produced by defendant had not confirmed signatures
on agreement nor the same had been placed before them---Such agreement would not carry any
evidentiary value in absence of compliance with provisions of Arts. 17, 79 & 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat,
1984---Defendant was legally obliged to have obtained consent and approval of plaintiff before
 transferring suit land to his close relatives---Valid gift could only be made, if there had been an
approval and consent of donor with regard to property sought to be gifted with specific mention of
donee's name---All such necessary particulars were lacking in the present case---Oral evidence could
neither be led nor considered to prove that parties intended something different from clear stipulation
of document---No oral evidence could be admitted or considered that parties, by executing general
power of attorney and gift deed, meant to effect a sale in favour of defendant---Plaintiff had executed
power of attorney for sale of suit land and not for making gift in favour of close relatives of defendant---
Transfer of suit land by defendant by way of gift in favour of his close relatives without prior consent of
plaintiff had no legal validity---Suit was decreed declaring impugned gift and subsequent transfers on
its basis as illegal and void.

   

  Citation Name  : 2009  YLR  1849     PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

  Side Appellant : Mir SAHIB KHAN

  Side Opponent : ZAREEN KHAN

Art.140---Cross-examination as to previous statement---If a witness would make any improvement in

his previous statement, his credibility could be impeached in cross-examination drawing his attention
towards his previous statement under Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

   

  Citation Name  : 2008  PCrLJ  1383     FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

  Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ISHAQ alias LANGHRA PIR

  Side Opponent : State

Art. 140---Cross-examination as to previous statement---Where a party had gone into the witness-box
on the point in issue and had made a statement inconsistent with the previous admission or ran
counter to that admission; then the previous admission could not -be used as legal evidence in the
 case against that party, unless the attention of the witness during cross-examination was drawn to that
statement and he was confronted with the specific portions of that statement which were sought to be
used as admission---Without complying with the procedure laid down in Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat,
1984 the admission contained in the previous statement could not be used as legal evidence against
that party.

   

  Citation Name  : 2008  PCrLJ  613     SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

  Side Appellant : NASIMA BIBI

  Side Opponent : STATE through Advocate-General

S. 154---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.140 & 153---First Information Report---Scope---F.I.R.

was ,a foundation stone of a criminal case though it was not a piece of substantive evidence---F.I.R.
was always used for contradicting under Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and corroborating under
Art.153 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---When some infirmities or irregularities were found in an F.I.R., it
certainly would affect the final determination of the case especially when it was lodged by a mere
stranger and not by an eye-witness.

   

  Citation Name  : 2008  PCrLJ  950     SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

  Side Appellant : UMMAR FAROOQ

  Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ILYAS

Art. 140---General Diary---General Diary which was an official register and the entries therein were
made in discharge of official duties, which if relevant concerning a fact in issue in a court of law, could
be used and brought on record under Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

   
  Citation Name  : 2006  PCRLJ  639     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
  Side Appellant : Dr. KHALID MOIN
  Side Opponent : State

---Art. 140---Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing---Procedure to prove

contradictions elaborated---Correct procedure for obtaining contradictions of a statement recorded in
Court from the statement recorded by the police under S.161, Cr.P.C. is that the attention of the
witness is drawn towards the said portion of the statement and if the witness admits the said portion
then an explanation is required to be obtained from the witness about the contradictory, statement
made by him in the Court from his 161, Cr.P.C. statement---If the witness denies, then the same
question is required to be asked from the Investigating Officer who recorded such statement to
ascertain whether he had recorded such statement and whether or not the witness had stated such
facts in the said statement---After that, such contradiction is required to be exhibited in evidence and
then it call be used while assessing the evidence of the said witness.
Citation Name  : 2006  PCRLJ  1576     KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

  Side Appellant : Syed HASHIM ALI

  Side Opponent : State

---Ss. 302, 365 & 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(c)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Art.40---Appreciation of evidence---No eye-witness was of the incident---Prosecution case rested upon
circumstantial evidence, which was not enough to justify inference of guilt against accused---
Fundamental principle of universal application in the cases depending on circumstantial evidence was
that in order to justify inference of guilt, incriminating fact must be incompatible with the innocence of
accused or the guilt of any other person and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable
hypothesis than that of his guilt---In case of circumstantial evidence, no link in the chain should be
missing and all circumstances must lead to the guilt of accused---Statement of both witnesses had not
been supported and corroborated by Mashir of the place of incident who was an independent witness
and in whose presence place of incident was seen by the police and it was difficult to rely upon any of
the two contradictory statements with regard to place of incident---Place of recovery of dead body
being known to everybody, it could not be termed as discovery within the meaning of Art.40 of Qanun-
e-Shahadat, 1984---Before recording statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. legal requirements were not
fulfilled---Said statement could not be treated as substantive piece of evidence---Trial Court, was not
justified in relying upon said statement---Prosecution having failed to prove case against accused,
appeal against impugned judgment of Trial Court, was allowed.
    

  Citation Name  : 2006  PLD  181     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : Mst. RASOOL BIBI through Legal Heirs

  Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT

---O. XXVI, Rr. 1, 9 & 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.140---Issuance of commission for local
inspection---Statement of a party before commission---Evidentiary value---Commission had only to
undertake the task of local inspection and had not been appointed to record statement of parties, so as
to be made part of evidence for purpose of adjudication of questions involved in the case---Party, while
appearing as witness in his suit, was not confronted with his statement before commission---Such
statement could not be used against such party.

   

  Citation Name  : 2006  YLR  28     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : PIR BAKHSH

  Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ

---Art. 140---Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing---Where a witness was to be

contradicted with reference to some earlier statement or admission, that could be done only by
confronting him with said previous statement.

   

  Citation Name  : 2005  YLR  1995     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : Mst. SHEEREEN TAHIRA

  Side Opponent : Brig. (Retd.) SHER AFGHAN

--Arts. 132(2), 140 & 141---Cross-examination-Pleadings-Proof-Witness was recalled for cross-

examination---Witness was not confronted with previous statement or pleadings---Witness stated "yes"
to every question---Witness had stated what had not been pleaded---Something not pleaded could not
be allowed to be proved---Evidence inconsistent with the pleadings was to be ignored---Answers
contrary to previous statement were ignored in circumstances.

   

  Citation Name  : 2005  YLR  2838     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : INAYAT ULLAH

  Side Opponent : NAZARAN BIBI

---S. 35---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 140---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R. I---
Pleadings---Cross-examination---Confrontation---Pleadings in the same suit are not previous
statements to attract the rule of confrontation.

   

  Citation Name  : 2005  PCRLJ  1022     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : TAHIR WAHEED

  Side Opponent : State

---Ss. 324/353/34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.140---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Ss.540, 161 & 162---Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing---Cross-version in a
challan case and a complaint case about the murders of two persons were pending in Trial Court---
During the cross-examination of Court-witnesses a question arose whether they could not be
confronted with their previous statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Two persons had lost their
lives in police encounter---All the witnesses were police officials including the complainant---Truth was
 to be elucidated from the witnesses---Provisions of S.540, Cr.P.C. could not be interpreted so as to
defeat other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Witness called and examined or
recalled or re-examined under S.540, Cr.P.C, retained his character as a prosecution or a defence
witness and he would be a Court-witness simpliciter if he was cited neither a prosecution witness nor a
defence witness---Given up prosecution witness if examined under S.540, Cr.P.C., therefore, could be
confronted with his police statement in terms of S.162, Cr. P. C.---Impugned order passed by the Trial
Court was upheld in circumstances.

   

  Citation Name  : 2005  MLD  1470     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : SHAUKAT ALI

  Side Opponent : State

---Ss. 161, 162 & 439---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 140---Object and purpose of S.162,
Cr.P.C.---Intention of legislature in framing S. 162, Cr.P.C. in the manner it did, was to protect accused
against the use of statements of witnesses, made before police during investigation, at the trial,
presumably on the assumption that said statements were not made in circumstances inspiring
confidence---Section 162, Cr.P.C. was conceived in an attempt to find a via media, namely, while it
enacted absolute bar against statement being used for any purpose whatsoever and it enabled
accused to rely upon it for limited purpose of contradicting a witness in the manner as provided by Art.
140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 by drawing his attention to parts of the statement intended for
contradiction, same could not be used for corroboration of a prosecution or a defence witness or even
a Court witness, nor could it be used for contradicting a defence or a Court witness by prosecution---
Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was controlled by 5.162, Cr.P.C. and prohibition contained in
S.162, Cr.P.C. could not be defeated---Portion of evidence wherein statement had been, used by
prosecution, would be disregarded as evidence, being inadmissible.

   

  Citation Name  : 2005  CLC  346     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : TAHIR PERVAIZ

  Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SADIQ

--Art. 140---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration to annul the registered gift-deed--
Cross-examination---Previous statements in writing---Portions contained in the documents were put to
the plaintiff in cross-examination---Denial of such statements was of no use to plaintiff as he had not
produced evidence to prove that such portions were not written on his instructions or those documents
had not originated from his acts or conduct.

   

  Citation Name  : 2005  YLR  2520     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : DOST MUHAMMAD

  Side Opponent : WAPDA through Chairman

---Art. 140---Cross-examination---Previous statement---Documents were not shown to the witness-.-

Witness was not confronted with any of the documents in accordance with law---Such documents
could not be looked into.

   

  Citation Name  : 2005  YLR  933     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASHIQ
  Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ANWAR

---Ss.162 & 265-C---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.140---Examination of person by police during

investigation--Supply of statements and documents to accused---If a person was examined by police
during course of investigation under Chapter XIV of Cr. P. C. and if that person was called as a witness
for the prosecution, accused had a right to request the Court to refer to such writing and for an order
that accused be furnished with a copy of statement of such person in order that any part of such
statement of duly approved, could be used to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Art.
140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---It was immaterial in such cases whether case was challaned by
police or was inquired by the Court in complaint---Subsection (2) of S.265-C, Cr.P.C. was not to be
read in isolation as said section was part and parcel of Chapter XXII-A of Cr. P. C. relating to trials
before High Court and before Court of Session and was to be read along with other relevant provisions
of law relating to trial or cases, specially, S.162, Cr. P. C. and Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 19