MD. SHAMSUL HUDA vs MOZAMMAL HUQ AND Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondents, wherein charges were framed under sections 342 and 384 of the Pakistan Penal Code. During the trial, the petitioner sought to summon a witness and compel the production of certain stamp papers from the respondents' custody, alleging these documents were used to fraudulently obtain his thumb impressions to create a deed of agreement. The Magistrate, the Additional Sessions Judge, and the High Court all rejected this prayer, reasoning that the documents were irrelevant to the specific criminal charges, as no charge of forgery had been framed. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, holding that the lower courts exercised their discretion properly. The Court emphasized that the refusal to compel production did not cause prejudice, as the petitioner retained the opportunity to challenge the genuineness of the disputed documents in the pending civil money suit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that judicial discretion regarding the production of evidence in criminal trials remains undisturbed absent a clear demonstration of prejudice or error.
- Can a court refuse the production of documents in a criminal trial if those documents are deemed irrelevant to the specific charges framed?
- Does the refusal to compel the production of documents in a criminal case constitute a reversible error if the petitioner has an alternative forum to challenge the evidence?
- Is the exercise of judicial discretion regarding the production of evidence subject to interference if no prejudice is demonstrated?
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 384, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner made a complaint against the respondents and examined witnesses.
2. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Magistrate framed charges against the respondents under sections 342 and ' 384 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In the case, the respondents were examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. On the 7th June 1969, all that date, the petitioner prayed for the first time for examination of one S. I., Bimal Krishna Sarkar and for production of stamp papers from the custody of the respondents. This prayer was rejected by the learned. Magistrate: A revisional application against the Magistrate's order was rejected -by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bakerganj. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the High Court in revision', but without any success. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal against the Order of the High Court.
3. Mr: Abdur. Rahman Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be produced from the custody of the respondents are necessary to substantiate the petitioner's contention that respondents fraudulently obtained his thumb-impression on certain blank papers and of which was alleged to have been converted into a deed of agreement on the basis of which the respondents filed a money suit against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs.
4. 62,828. The Courts below were of the view that the documents sought to be produced are not relevant for the criminal case against the respondents as there was no charge against them for forgery. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's prayer for production of documents was refused.
5. This was a discretionary matter of the Courts, and it cannot be said that the discretion, in. The absence of a charge for forgery, was wrongly exercised. Nor the Courts' refusal to secure production of the alleged documents caused any prejudice, because the petitioner shall have ample opportunity to question the genuineness of these documents in the money suit awaiting petition is dismissed.