P L D 2022 Sindh 222

Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Shamsuddin Abbasi, JJ

MUHAMMAD YOUNUS ARAIN and others---Petitioners
Versus
STATE through D.G. NAB and another---Respondents
C.Ps. Nos. D-2119 of 2011, D-1640 of 2012 and D-4438 of 2014, decided on 15th October,
2021.
(a) Evidence---
----Document, tendering of---Effect---Tendering a document in evidence is wholly distinct
rule, it concerns with mode of proving document itself---Existence and probative value of
such document is different matter and involves assessment to be made by Trial Court of a
fact it seeks to establish---For Court to look into document for deciding its probative or
evidentiary value, it is necessary to tender the document legally first.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Arts. 72, 73, 74 & 79---Document, tendering in evidence---Effect---Tendering of
document in evidence does not imply that it has been accepted by Court as an admissible
piece of evidence and its probative value has to be looked into and determined---To produce
original document (primary evidence) or its certified copy etc. (secondary evidence) is
basically mode of proving the document itself, its existence and not the contents it
contains---Determination of evidentiary or probative value of contents of a document is the
next stage which is undertaken only after existence or execution of a document has been
established either through primary or secondary evidence as the case may be---First stage is
to prove existence of a document itself, once it is past positively, second stage to prove the
contents document seeks to convey comes into play.
(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Arts. 75, 76 & 79---Photostat copy of document, tendering in evidence---Effect---When a
photostat document is taken on record, subject to its admissibility and later no steps are taken
to prove contents of document by leading primary or secondary evidence, such document
cannot be taken into consideration for determining its evidentiary value---Merely by
tendering a document in evidence, it gets no evidentiary value unless its contents are proved
in terms of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.
(d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 72---Documentary evidence---Inadmissible evidence---Effect---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.
(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 72---Document tendered in evidence, objection to---Principle---When defence
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.
(f) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)---
----S. 17---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 78, 85,91 & 134---Criminal Procedure
Code (V of 1898), Ss. 94, 340 & 540---Documentary evidence---Public document---
Presumption---Photostat copies of document seized during investigation---Evidence in
criminal and civil proceedings---Distinction---Petitioners facing trial objected to production
of photostat copies of documents tendered in evidence by prosecution---Validity---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.
PLD 2009 Lah. 254; 2018 SCMR 2092; PLD 2021 SC 715; 2017 PCr.LJ 854; PLD 2017
SC 265; PLD 1973 SC 160; PLD 1969 SC 477; 2003 PCr.LJ 1353; 2018 SCMR 2092; 1997
MLD 806; PLD 2011 SC 350; PLD 1998 Kar. 86; PLD 2021 SC 715; PLD 2000 SC 795;
PLD 2007 Kar. 194; 2017 PCr.LJ 294; PLD 2009 Lah. 254; 2002 SCMR 468; Hyderabad
Development Authority through MD Civic Center Hyderabad v. Abdul Majeed and others
PLD 2002 SC 84; Dawa Khan through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Tayyab 2013 SCMR
1113; C.P. No.D-3045 of 2021 and Civil Petition No.4878 of 2021 ref.
Muhammad Rehman Gous for Petitioners (in C.P. No.D-2119 of 2011 and C.P. No.D-
1640 of 2012).
Muhammad Ashraf and Irshad Ali Jatoi for Petitioner (in C.P. No.D-4438 of 2014).
Shahbaz Sahotra, Special Prosecutor NAB.
Syed Meeral Shah, Addl.P.G.
 Dates of hearing: 17th and 30th September, 2021.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Through these petitions, petitioners, standing a
trial in NAB references separately, have questioned validity of production of Photostat
copies in evidence before the trial court. In C.P. No.D-1640 of 2012, petitioner Habib Ahmed
Khan, accused in Reference No.40 of 2005, has however impugned two orders dated
21.12.2011 and 19.4.2012 dismissing his applications under section 540, Cr.P.C. and Articles
78, 134 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and 340, Cr.P.C. filed for the same purpose and
for recalling and re-examining the witnesses.
2. When C.P. No.D-2119 of 2011 came up for hearing on 10.8.2011, this court appointed
Messrs Akhar Ali Mehmood and Makhdoom Ali Khan, Senior Advocates, as amicus curiae
to assist the court on the issue and suspended the trial. The case however lingered on minus
any progress, and therefore we could not have the honor of their input on the point.
Meanwhile in the year 2014 petitioner Ghulam Qadir Memon, accused in Reference No.4 of
2012, filed C.P. No.D-4438 of 2014 agitating the same point. And in view of the earlier order
passed in C.P. No.D-2119 of 2011, his trial was also suspended. Before filing these
petitioners, petitioners first tried to impress the trial court of validity of their objection over
production of such documents but did not succeed.
3. In order to settle down the controversy, this court framed following two questions vide
order dated 10.8.2011.
"As to whether the admissibility of the documents under objection from the accused has to
be decided instantly or at least before recording the evidence of the accused, or such
determination can be deferred till the time of commencing of final arguments.
The other question that may arise is as to whether the prosecution can confront the
accused or his witnesses with a document, admissibility whereof is yet to be
determined and whether such witnesses can be cross-examined on the basis of such
document."
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record
including the case laws cited at bar. Learned defense counsel have contended that impugned
orders are neither predicated on a legal proposition nor are in synchronization with factual
aspects of the case; that a judgment of learned Lahore High Court PLD 2009 Lahore 254
relied upon by the trial court is completely on different facts and circumstances; the
documents produced by witnesses are not computer generated, as is held by the trial court,
but are scanned copies of handwritten documents, as such cannot be allowed to be produced
without explaining first about its original copies; learned trial court did not attend to its duty
of deciding objection over production of documents instantly as laid down by the superior
courts time and again in a number of cases; that an objection to admissibility of a
document(s) is required to be decided at the time of evidence to save the court from taking
such document on record; the law mandates admitting in evidence only admissible piece of
evidence; the scanned/Photostat copies of documents have been produced and treated as
primary evidence which is a violation of scheme under Articles 73 to 79 of the Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984 (Qanun-e-Shahadat); that the law recognizes only original documents
as primary evidence, and Photostat copies as secondary evidence, but allows its production
only when there is explanation qua absence or loss of the former. The PW who produced the
documents was neither the author nor the witness thereof as such was not authorized to
present them in his evidence. The procedure adopted by the trial court is alien to law and is
likely to impair right of the petitioners to a fair trial guaranteed under the Constitution.
Lastly they urged that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and may be set aside.
They relied upon the case law reported in 2018 SCMR 2092, PLD 2021 SC 715, 2017 PCr.LJ
854, PLD 2017 SC 265, PLD 1973 SC 160, PLD 1969 SC 477, 2003 PCr.LJ 1353, 2018
SCMR 2092, 1997 MLD 806, PLD 2011 SC 350, PLD 1998 Kar. 86 and PLD 2021 SC 715.
5. Learned Special Prosecutor took a different stance and stated that the documents,
produced in evidence, were seized through a memo and provided to the petitioners/accused
before framing of charge in compliance of section 265-C, Cr.P.C. as such no prejudice has
been caused to them. The trial against the petitioners is at the fag-end, and all the witnesses
have been examined; the petitioners in order to linger on the matter have raised a controversy
which being irrelevant has no place in the eyes of law. He lastly submitted that purpose of
summing up the case finally before the judgment is to enable the trial court to rescan the
entire material including evidence and the documents produced. Per him, learned defense
counsels have the opportunity to present their case on the point before the trial court in final
arguments. Raising objection before that stage amounts to causing delay in conclusion of the
trial which under the law is impermissible. He relied upon the case laws reported in PLD
2000 SC 795, PLD 2007 Kar. 194, 2017 PCr.LJ 294, PLD 2009 Lah. 254 and 2002 SCMR
468.
6. We have considered contesting contentions of the parties and gone through the material
on record including the case law cited at bar. As we intend to aim ensuing discussion over
entire gamut of the issue in hand have decided to examine and answer both the questions
together. But before that we would like to quote in brief respective facts and the issues
obtaining in each petition, which we have replied accordingly in following paras. Petitioner
Muhammad Yonis Arain (C.P. No.D-2119 of 2011) filed an application under section 340,
Cr.P.C. read with Article 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat in the trial court seized with Reference
No.33/2007 requesting it to decide objection, noted in evidence but not decided and deferred,
to admissibility of the documents produced by the I.O. in his evidence. Evidence of the I.O.
is available in the file. A perusal of which shows that the objection raised by learned defense
counsel was that he was not author or signature of the documents, and therefore authenticity
thereof was doubtful. The learned trial court while dismissing the application has observed
the documents were collected in the investigation and supplied to the accused 265-C,
Cr.P.C., except one document but that too is an official document collected by the I.O. from
Income Tax Department. It is clear from such observation of the trial court that the
documents tendered in evidence were part of official record and public documents. Mode of
proof of such documents is provided under Articles 88 and 89 of Qanun-e-Shahadat
stipulating a different method of proof for such documents to the one prescribed for a
privates document. The argument was misconceived, and has been rightly repelled.
7. Petitioner Ghulam Qadir Memon and others (C.P. No.D-4438 of 2014), accused in
Reference No.41/2012, objected, through an application, to production of Photostat copies of
some documents by a PW on the ground, among others, that there was no mention of such
documents in his 161 Cr.P.C. and were Photostat copies. This objection has been rejected by
the trial court holding that the documents are computer generated, are being produced by a
PW who is NADRA official, and are duly attested by him. And hence the same are relevant
as per Article 2(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat read with section 29 of the Electronics Transactions
Ordinance, 2002. Learned counsel's argument is that they are scanned copies of handwritten
documents and thus cannot be produced in absence of some explanation of original copies.
This argument is misconceived and not sustainable. No doubt, the documents are copies of
relevant entries of record manually made but are not simple scanned copies of such record.
This record has been digitalized since, and the copies have been generated from it by the
computer with due verification and authentication recorded thereon. They are part of official
record of NADRA and have been attested by the PW who himself is NADRA official. They
are public documents and not private documents to require mode of proof for proving their
existence in a manner prescribed for the later. The application has been rightly dismissed
through impugned order does not call for interference.
8. Petitioner Habib Ahmed Khan (C.P. No.D-1640 of 2012), arraigned in Reference
40/2005, has impugned orders dated 21.12.2011 and 19.4.2021 dismissing his two
applications filed under section 540, Cr.P.C. and Articles 78, 134 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order
and 340, Cr.P.C. These applications were filed at the time of final arguments seeking mainly
opinion of the trial court, prematurely, on admissibility of the documents already tendered in
the evidence and recalling the witnesses, already examined, for re-examination. The trial
court while recording dismissal of the applications has undertaken a proper appreciation of
material and contentions, and has given cogent reasons in support of its findings. The
application for recalling the witness was found hopelessly time-barred and moved after more
than two years of relevant evidence. While on application seeking a decision on objection
over admissibility of the documents in evidence, it has observed that it will be decided at the
final stage. As any opinion in this regard before the judgment is likely to prejudice case of
either party and compromises merits of the case. We do not see any justification, in the light
of such observations plus the following discussion, to interfere in the said findings in
constitutional jurisdiction.
9. In the backdrop of facts of each petition and questions framed, we want to stress at the
onset that tendering a document, may be a Photostat copy, etc. in evidence, is a different
concept in law to accepting it as admissible evidence. A document being tendered in
evidence would not imply that it has been accepted by the court as an admissible piece of
evidence and its evidentiary or probative value has been looked into and determined.
Producing original document (primary evidence) or its certified copy, etc. (secondary
evidence) in evidence is basically the mode of proving the document itself, its existence, and
not the contents it contains. Determination of evidentiary or probative value of the contents
thereof is the next stage which is undertaken only after existence or execution of a document
has been established either through primary, or secondary evidence, as the case may be. First
stage is to prove existence of a document itself, once it is past positively second stage to
prove the contents the document seeks to convey comes into play. Tendering a document in
evidence is wholly distinct a rule, it concerns with mode of proving the document itself, its
existence, its probative value is a different matter, and involves assessment to be made by the
trial court of a fact it seeks to establish. It may be reiterated that for the court to look into the
document for deciding its probative or evidentiary value, it is necessary to tender the
document legally first. This construction is well-illustrated in the following precedents set
out by the Honorable Supreme Court.
10. First is the case of Hyderabad Development Authority through MD Civic Center
Hyderabad v. Abdul Majeed and others (PLD 2002 SC 84). Para No.9 of the judgment is
relevant. It shows that a Photostat copy of conveyance deed was tendered in evidence which
the trial judge did not accept as admissible evidence. His finding was upheld. But in this
context, the opinion of the Apex Court delineating core consideration to be had, is quite
relevant to bring home our view on the point. It says that when a Photostat document is taken
on record subject to its admissibility and later no steps are taken to prove the contents of the
document by leading primary or secondary evidence in terms of Articles 75 and 76 of Qanun-
e-Shahadat, the document cannot be taken into consideration. It further says that merely by
tendering a document in evidence, it gets no evidentiary value unless its contents are proved
according to law. Same view was taken in the case of Dawa Khan through L.Rs. and others v.
Muhammad Tayyab (2013 SCMR 1113), when in para 12 of the judgment, it was observed,
that the contention that under Article 81 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, if a document produced is
admissible in evidence, the party relying upon it is not required to prove its contents, is
without force and misconceived. Admissibility of a document in evidence by itself will not
absolve the party from proving it contents in terms of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat.
11. Nonetheless, it may be stressed, when a piece of evidence/ document sought to be
tendered is admittedly inadmissible, irrespective of mode of proof of such document, its
production in evidence will be denied. To this proposition, there could be no cavil. It is a
judicially recognized fact and upheld in several pronouncements. But simultaneously, it may
be urged that to hold or to view that a given piece of evidence is inadmissible (its contents
cannot be accepted or admitted to have probative value as such) will involve presence of
predetermination of such fact. If the evidence/document is undisputedly inadmissible, it will
not be permitted to be brought on record by the court regardless whether or not any objection
in this respect has been raised by the defense. But if the defense objects to its tendering i.e.
mode of proof of the document, it will be the duty of the court to decide it immediately and
not defer it. However, when it is not the case, and the objection is not on existence or
execution of the document itself but on its 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, its production in evidence will not be denied. Notwithstanding, the party will not
stand absolved of its obligation to prove contents of the document which it has succeeded in
tendering in evidence.
12. Be that as it may, we may remind, whatever discussion we have had above regarding
mode of proof of a document or its evidentiary value mainly relates to a private document.
The case here does not involve tendering of a private document in evidence but a public
document seized in the investigation. The mode of proof of such document is rolled out
under Articles 88 and 89 of Qanun-e-Shahadat. A combined reading of which would
demonstrate that certified copies could be produced in evidence in proof of contents of a
public document. The objection raised by learned defense counsel in arguments is not that
these documents do not exist and have been forged and fabricated. But they insist that as the
prosecution has not produced the original documents or offered any explanation for its loss
or absence, and that the PW who has produced the document is neither author nor signatory
or attesting witness thereof, they are inadmissible in evidence. These objections, as is clear,
are not on mode of proof of the document itself but what the document seeks to convey, the
evidentiary value, and are relevant to backdrop of a private document, where it is upon the
party concerned to prove first existence or execution of the document it is relying upon for
the court to look into it for determining its evidentiary value.
 13. Whereas, rule governing mode of proof of a public document is quite different. No
doubt, the primary evidence is the document itself and its certified copy, etc. is the secondary
evidence. But to an official/ public document presumption of genuineness is attached,
therefore, its attested or certified copy is relevant and admissible in evidence, unless contrary
is proved rebutting such presumption completely. As such there is no requirement of law to
examine author or attesting witness to prove existence or execution of a public document.
However, when the very existence of a document is disputed, then it would be incumbent
upon the prosecution etc. to produce the original document.
14. Further, learned defense counsel relied upon paras Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of a judgment of
Honorable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hayatullah v. The State (2018 SCMR
2092) and said that inadmissible evidence cannot be even tendered. We have gone through
the judgment with due deference. In this case, confession of the accused before the I.O. and
memo of disclosure prepared by him (the I.O.) to support such confession was allowed to be
taken on record and accepted as admissible in clear violation of Articles 38 and 39 of Qanun-
e-Shahadat Order. Plus, revelation by the accused of places of recovery of dead body of the
victim, and the motor cycle, etc. already known and discovered by the police were accepted
and treated relevant under Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat. Both the pieces i.e. confession of
an accused before the police and the discovery of facts on his pointation, already discovered,
are admittedly inadmissible evidence. Mode of proof of such document i.e. existence or
execution are therefore irrelevant in the circumstances. Because, even if these document
were brought on record, being inadmissible, would not be looked into by the court for
determination of their probative value. It is undisputed that such evidence cannot be
permitted to be tendered in evidence. We have held above that the evidence which is
unquestionably inadmissible cannot be permitted to be tendered, and treated as a proof in
support of the charge and made a base for convicting the accused. So it is clear that our
humble view is in respectable agreement with what the Honorable Supreme Court has been
pleased to lay down on the point in the above case.
15. In order to further elaborate, we take the liberty to quote following precedent set out
by this court on the same point. A division bench of this court of which one of us
(Muhammad lqbal Kalhoro) was a member in a decision, rendered on 26.07.2021 in C.P.
No.D-3045 of 2021 filed by an accused standing a trial in a NAB case, has dealt with an
identical question raised however in a different context. It is held that scheme of criminal law
is altogether different to civil proceedings. The document in the investigation is
collected/obtained under a seizure memo. Section 94, Cr.P.C. is relevant in this respect and,
among others, empowers the I.O. to seize or collect a document required for investigation
purpose. Whereas, under Article 91 of of Qanun-e-Shahadat, the document, purporting to be
a record or memorandum of the evidence, can be produced in the court by a witness and it
will have a presumption of genuineness attached to it. It however is a rebuttable presumption
and its veracity is to be judged by weighing all the aspects including objection, relevancy and
other factors. This decision was questioned before the Honorable Supreme Court in a Civil
Petition No.4878 of 2021 and decided vide judgment dated on 6.9.2021. The Honorable
Apex Court has endorsed findings on both the counts i.e. collection and production of a
document in a criminal case is relevant as per scheme under section 94, Cr.P.C., and
presumption of genuineness is attached to the document produced as such as record of
evidence under Article 91 of Qanun-e-Shahadat; plus the finding that dispensation under
criminal case is entirely different to the one under the civil proceedings. We may reiterate
that the rule to appreciate a document in a criminal case as an admissible piece of evidence
cannot be identified with the regime applied to appreciate a document for the said purpose in
a civil case in respect of a private document. While the claim of a party in civil proceedings
is decided on preponderance of probability. All that is necessary in a civil case is to show
that proof adduced in support of a fact is such that it will make a prudent mind act upon it.
But in a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable
doubt. His conviction is recorded by the court only when it is satisfied that possibility of his
innocence, on the basis of evidence adduced against him, is completely ruled out.
16. The upshot of above discussion can be summarized as under:--
(i) A document being tendered in evidence would not imply that it has been accepted by
the court as an admissible piece of evidence and its probative value has been looked
into and determined.
(ii) To produce original document (primary evidence) or its certified copy, etc. (secondary
evidence) is basically the mode of proving the document itself, its existence, and not
the contents it contains.
(iii) Determination of evidentiary or probative value of the contents of a document is the
next stage which is undertaken only after existence or execution of a document has
been established either through primary, or secondary evidence, as the case may be.
(iv) First stage is to prove existence of a document itself, once it is past positively, second
stage to prove the contents the document seeks to convey comes into play.
(v) Tendering a document in evidence is wholly distinct a rule, it concerns with mode of
proving the document itself, its existence, its probative value is a different matter, and
involves assessment to be made by the trial court of a fact it seeks to establish.
(vi) When a Photostat document is taken on record subject to its admissibility and later no
steps are taken to prove the contents of the document by leading primary or secondary
evidence, the document would not be taken into consideration for determining its
evidentiary value. Merely by tendering a document in evidence, it gets no evidentiary
value unless its contents are proved in terms of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat.
(vii) When a piece of evidence/document sought to be tendered is admittedly
inadmissible, irrespective of mode of proof of such document, its production in
evidence will be denied.
(viii) But 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)
will involve presence of predetermination of such fact.
(ix) When the defense objects to tendering i.e. mode of proof of a document in evidence, it
will be the duty of the court to decide it immediately and not defer it.
 (x) However, when the objection is not on existence or execution of the document itself
but on its 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, it
production in evidence will not be denied.
(xi) Presumption of genuineness is attached to a public document, attested or certified
copy thereof is relevant and admissible in evidence, unless contrary is proved
rebutting such presumption completely.
(xii) There is no requirement of law to examine author or attesting witness to prove
existence of a public document. Therefore there is no obligation upon the prosecution
to examine any such person in proof of an official document.
(xiii) The document in the investigation is collected/obtained under a seizure memo.
Section 94, Cr.P.C. is relevant in this respect and, among others, empowers the I.O. to
seize or collect a document required for investigation purpose.
(xiv) Whereas, under Article 91 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, the document, purporting to
be a record or memorandum of the evidence, can be produced in the court by a
witness and it will have a presumption of genuineness attached to it.
(xv) The rule to appreciate a document in a criminal case as an admissible piece of
evidence cannot be identified with the regime applied to appreciate a document for
the said purpose in a civil case in respect of a private document.
(xvi) While the claim of a party in civil proceedings is decided on preponderance of
probability. All that is necessary in a civil case is to show that proof adduced in
support of a fact is such that it will make a prudent mind act upon it.
(xvii) In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove guilt of an accused beyond a
reasonable doubt. His conviction is recorded by the court only when it is satisfied that
possibility of his innocence, on the basis of evidence adduced against him, is
completely ruled out.
17. The petitions in hand are accordingly dismissed and the questions framed are replied
in above terms. Since the cases in hand are old, we are hopeful that the trial court would
expedite the proceedings and conclude them in three months. The trial court while deciding
the matter will attend to the objections by defense counsel over production of Photostat
copies of the documents and determine them in accordance with law in the light of principles
set out in this order.
MH/M-151/Sindh Petitions dismisse