' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.---Through the instant petition, order dated 6-2-2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vehari, has been challenged, whereby Muhammad Afzal, Head Constable, has been called for recording his statement as secondary evidence.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as there is no provision in the law, to call a person to adduce secondary evidence, hence the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and that when the above-named Head Constable has already been examined as P.W.5, no need of his re-examination as directed in the impugned order.
3. The learned DPG has opposed the petition.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. The record shows that during the trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vehari, in case F.I.R. No,47/2011 dated 29-1-2011, registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149 and 109, P.P.C. Against the present petitioner and 9 others, when after examination of five prosecution witnesses, it revealed that the Investigating Officer namely Raja Zafar Iqbal, S.I. Being an accused in a criminal case registered against him under section 302 of P.P.C., was proclaimed offender, hence not available, the learned trial Court on the basis of an application moved by respondent No,2 (complainant) directed that Muhammad Afzal, Head Constable, who remained associated with the above named S.I. And as such acquainted with his handwriting and signatures, be summoned to give secondary evidence.
6. There is no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for she petitioner that in the law there is no provision for calling and examining a person for secondary evidence. Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, deals with the said procedure. For guidance and perusal, the said Article is reproduced hereunder:-- "Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.---If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the documents as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting."
7. As per the above mentioned provision, a document can be proved by:-
(i) admission.
(ii) calling the person who had written and signed it.
(iii) calling the persons in whose presence it was reduced to writing.
(iv) calling the person who was acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of the person by whom the document was supposed to be written or signed.
(v) comparison in the Court, disputed handwriting or signatures with admitted signatures and handwriting.
(vi) calling Hand Writing Expert.
8. When in the situation in hand, it has been proved on the record that the above named S.I. Being Investigating Officer had carried on certain proceedings and prepared certain documents, who being a proclaimed offender, in a criminal case is not traceable/available, then to carry on proceedings, in the trial and its conclusion, bringing on the record, the proceedings/documents, conducted and prepared, by the above named S.I./Investigating Officer, secondary evidence is demand of the situation.
9. It has been brought on the record that the above named Head Constable remained posted with the above named S.I./Investigating Officer and as such acquainted with his handwriting and signatures, hence the said Head Constable is very much relevant to adduce evidence about the proceedings carried on and the documents prepared and signed by the Si/Investigating Officer.
Therefore, if the above named Head Constable has already been recorded as a prosecution witness, then for the purpose of abovementioned secondary evidence, there is no bar for not appearing again, in the witness box.
10. Resultantly, the instant revision petition being devoid of any force and merits is hereby dismissed.