MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ vs THE STATE and 2 others
This criminal revision petition was filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi, which declined the petitioner's request to obtain handwriting samples of two police officials for comparison with case records. The petitioner, facing trial under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, alleged that the case record was fabricated and that the police officials had falsely claimed authorship of the complaint and FIR. The core legal question was whether the trial court was required to order a handwriting comparison to determine the authenticity of the documents. During the proceedings, the police officials admitted in court that the complaint was not written by the person originally claimed, but rather by another officer, and further admitted uncertainty regarding the authorship of the formal FIR. Consequently, the High Court held that a formal handwriting comparison was unnecessary given these admissions. Instead, the Court allowed the petitioner to further cross-examine the witnesses to confront them with the record in light of their new statements, ensuring a just resolution of the matter without necessitating forensic analysis.
- Is a formal handwriting comparison necessary when police witnesses admit in court that the documents in question were not written by the person originally claimed?
- Can a court allow further cross-examination of witnesses to confront them with their own admissions made during appellate proceedings?
- Does the admission of authorship by a witness regarding a disputed document render the request for forensic handwriting comparison redundant?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
' Through this revision petition Muhammad Fayyaz, petitioner who is facing trial in the Court of a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mailsi in a case under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 has challenged the validity of the order, dated 26-3-2007 whereby the learned trial Court declined to obtain the handwriting of Nadeem Afzaal, Inspector/S.H.O. And Latif Ullah, S.-I. For comparison with the record prepared by these two officials pertaining to case F.I.R.
No, 238 of 2006, dated 1-8-2006 registered at Police Station Karampur. Tehsil Mailsi. It is submitted that during cross-examination Nadeem Afzaal, S.H.O./P.W.4 was suggested that the complaint made by him on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Was registered was not in his handwriting but the witness denied the suggestion and maintained that it had been drawn by him. Similarly he had also denied that it was scribed by Latif Ullah. A.S.-I. He further submitted that Latif Ullah, A.S.-I. Now S.-I. During cross-examination denied that the complaint purported to have been drawn by Nadeem Afzaal, Inspector/S.H.O. Was in his own handwriting.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the record of the case had been fabricated by these two police officials at the police station and no recovery was effected from the possession of the petitioner but these officials made false statements at the trial as such it was essential for the just decision of the case that specimen of their handwritings should be obtained and sent for comparison.
3. Both these police officials are in attendance. Nadeem Afzaal, Inspector/S.H.O. Admitted that the complaint on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Registered was not in his handwriting. He explained that he had in fact summoned Latif Ullah, A.S.-I. Who was posted as A.S.-I./Duty Officer at the relevant time in Police Station Karampur to scribe the complaint. Similarly Latif Ullah, S.-I. Present in Court admitted to be the author of the said complaint. He further admitted that the formal F.I.R appears to have been drawn by him was not in his handwriting and that it was written by some of his subordinates whose name he did not remember.
4. In view of the above statements of Nadeem Afzaal, Inspector/S.H.O. And Latif Ullah, S.-I. We do not consider it necessary to order comparison of the record with the handwriting of these two police officials. In the circumstances of the case we consider it just and proper to allow the petitioner to further cross-examine these witnesses for the purpose of confrontation with the record in the light of their today's statements in Court. Both these police officials/witnesses shall appear before the trial Court on 8-5-2007 along with Register Roznamcha of Police Station Karampur for the relevant period.
5. With the above observation this petition stands disposed of.