SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---This petition is directed against order dated 13.1.2015, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang overruled an objection taken by the petitioner, during examination of Javed Iqbal, Statistical Assistant, NRC (National Registration Centre), Jhang (D.W.4) and directed that the statement of the defence witness be completed.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband Ch.Jamshed Iqbal was murdered on 7.1.2012 regarding which caseF.I.R. No,17/12, dated 7.1.2012, under sections 109, 302/34 P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Kotwali Jhang, on the statement of respondent-Gul Sher; the petitioner did not feel satisfied with the demeanour of the complainant of the F.I.R. As well as that of the local police, therefore, she filed a private complaint for offences under sections 109, 302/34 P.P.C. Against respondent-Gul Sher and others (Nos.2 to 6) for their trial on the charge of murdet,of her husband; after preliminary proceedings under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., respondents Nos.2 to 6 were summoned under section 204 Cr.P.C. By the learned trial court to face the trial; learned trial court indicted the said respondents on 6.11.2012, whereafter case was fixed for recording the prosecution evidence; some of the witnesses were recorded as PWs and some as CWs before the complainant's case was pronounced closed by the learned ADPP on 1.12.2014; the respondents-accused rendered statements under section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein they showed willingness to produce evidence in their defence; it was the fourth defence witness, namely Javed Iqbal, Statistical Assistant NRC, whose examination was intercepted twice by the prosecution/complainant by raising a couple of objections, one out of which relating to admissibility of a document (Exh.DW4/A) was ordered to be taken up by the trial court at the time of final arguments and the other as to deposing about the contents of the said document, by the DW was quickly overruled by the trial court with the direction that the statement of the defence witness be completed, which caused annoyance to the petitioner. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the complainant of the complaint-case, wherein respondents Nos.2 to 6 are facing the. Charge of murder of the husband of the petitioner; Gul Sher (respondent No,2) is the real brother of the deceased, whereas respondents Nos .5 and 6 are real sons of respondent No,2 and Hamayoun Saifullah alias Saifi (respondent No,3) is real maternal nephew of Gul Sher-accused; the respondents being in league with each other committed murder of Jamshed Iqbal only to evade the liability of repaying the debt-amount of rupees twenty millions to him; in their trial, the respondents produced Javed Iqbal, Statistical Assistant NRC, Jhang (D.W.4) in their defence, who presented record of E-Toll Plaza, NHA Islamabad, dated 7.1.2012, which was exhibited under an objection of the prosecution as Exh.DW4/A; this particular objection was not immediately remarked about by the learned trial court and it kept the issue deferred till final arguments were advanced by the parties; the DW started narrating contents of the said document, which was seriously objected to by the prosecution, but learned trial court overruled the objection and asked DW to complete his statement; the impugned observation made by the learned trial court is patently illegal as document in question was not per-se admissible nor DW could prove its contents through his examination-in-chief; the defence witness was not scribe of the said document nor he had signed it; the DW4 should have merely tendered the electronic document-in-issue and not deposed about the contents thereof; the impugned order being patently unwarranted by law may be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 6 has opposed this petition by contending that electronically generated document may be treated as the primary evidence and Article 73 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 has provided so without any ambiguity; learned trial court received the Vehicle Tracking Ticket/information (Exh.DW4/A) in defence evidence without any irregularity or illegality and impugned observation made by it did not suffer from any legal defect; the electronically generated document is not supposed to be signed by anyone nor can its admissibility be objected to unless it could be shown that the automated information system was not in working order; the contents of the said document could be deposed about by DW4, as merely tendering the said document in evidence did not necessarily mean that its contents stood proved; lastly submitted that the impugned order/observation is legal, which may be sustained as per law.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab felt inclined to support the arguments of learned counsel for respondents Nos .2 to 6 and he finished with the argument that the instant petition filed by the petitioner was misconceived, which may be declined.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the available record, it is observed that the controversy under discussion started when Javed Iqbal, Statistical Assistant NRC, Jhang was produced by the respondents (Nos.2 to 6) in their defence as D.W.4. He tendered an attested copy of the Vehicle-Tracking/information certificate (Exh.DW4/A) in his statement by deposing that he had brought the electronic record of E-toll system NHA Islamabad pertaining to 7th day of January 2012 about the entry of car No,9333-LEA onto Ravi Toll Plaza Motorway Lahore and its exit from Toll Plaza Motorway Faisalabad. An objection was raised by the complainant-petitioner's counsel as to admissibility of the said document, for in his wisdom, it was not a public document.
The learned trial court deferred recording its finding on the said objection till trial would reach the stage of final arguments. The defence witness deposed about another fact as to the ownership of the said vehicle when learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner raised an objection, "that the witness is neither scribe of the record nor he is the record keeper, nor he had prepared the copy of the document, therefore, he cannot be allowed to give contents of the document as per law. "
Learned trial court heard both the sides on this particular objection of the complainant-side and recorded its finding as under:- "The entries of E-toll are completely computerized, the record of computerized data is preserved by NADRA and the witness has come from NADRA with record. Let him complete his statement. "
' The objection raised was overruled. The petitioner did not let the trial court complete the examination-in-chief of D.W.4 or complete his evidence in all respects and sought an adjournment to challenge the said observation of the trial court before this court. It appears from the language of the objection taken that it was closely linked with the earlier objection taken by the complainant/petitioner and which has not been resolved by the learned trial court as yet. It may be understood from half-recorded statement-in-chief of D.W.4 that he was an employee of NADRA and posted as a Statistical Assistant at National Registration Centre, Jhang, a subsidiary/wing of the NADRA. The document (Exh.DW4/A) produced depicts electronically generated evidence, which, in terms of Article 73 of the Order (ibid) may be considered primary evidence. It will be advantageous to reproduce the definition of Article 73 of the Order (ibid):- "73. Primary evidence. Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
' Explanation I. Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document.
' Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
' Explanation 2. Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.
' Explanation 3. A printout or other form of output of an automated information system shall not be denied the status of primary evidence solely for the reason that it was generated, sent, received or stored in electronic form if the automated information system was in working order at all material times and, for the purposes hereof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it shall be presumed that the automated information system was in working order at all material times.
' Explanation 4. A printout or other form of reproduction of a electronic Document, other than a Document mentioned in Explanation 3 above, first generated, sent, received or stored in electronic form, shall be treated as primary evidence where a security procedure was applied thereto at the time it was generated, sent, received or stored. (In terms of 5.29 of Electronic Transactions Ordinance, LI 2002, for the purpose of Ordinance LI 2002 the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 shall be read subject to the amendments specified in the schedule to this Ordinance LI of 2002, Added by Ordinance LI of 2002, w.e.f, 11th September, 2002). "
7. As mentioned in Explanation No,3, a printout or other form of output of an automated information system could not be denied the status of primary evidence solely for the reason that it was an output of the automated information system. It has been admitted on both the sides that Exh.DW4/A was not a copy/photocopy of any other document rather it was a true account of the information generated during the oft-repeated automated information system, but it bore the signature of Deputy Assistant Director NRC Jhang..Learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue that the aforesaid document should have been received by the trial court as secondary evidence within the mischief of Article 74 and 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Leaving this particular issue aside for the trial court to deal with at some appropriate stage of the trial and confining the matter to the ambit of the objection-in-issue, it may be viewed that the objection raised was treble-facetted i.e, the witness was not the scribe of the record, he was not the record keeper nor he had prepared the copy of the document, therefore, he stood barred from proving the contents thereof. The aforesaid document was not manually prepared nor having been marginally signed by the executors or the witnesses thereof. It was the product of automated information system, which was hardly required to be signed by anyone.
8. The entry and exit of a car through E-toil plaza of the motorway is regulated by an electronic system, which turns operative, the moment any vehicle would pass through it. The relevant data so generated shall be received or stored in electronic form, at the NADRA office and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it shall be presumed that the automated system was in working order at all material times. A statistical assistant whose duty understandably is to deal with the statistical data maintained at the office of the NADRA, where he worked in the said capacity. There can hardly be found any fault or anything lacking in the potentiality of Javed Iqbal (D.W.4) to depose as a witness as to multi-information studded document. The only objection as to credibility of the said document may come from the situation, hinting at disorderly working of the system-installed, which is not the case here.
9. To tender a document in evidence is something different from proving it in contents thereof.
Admissibility of a document in evidence by itself does not absolve the party from proving its contents in terms of Article 79 of the Order (ibid). An electronically generated document would not require any signature to be put on it by virtue of Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002.
Production of a document and proof of the document were two different subjects. A document can be produced in evidence, which is always subject to proof as required under Article 78 of the Order (ibid). If a document was relied upon by a party and it had been formally exhibited but was not proved in accordance with the law, therefore, it could not be relied upon in circumstances. A medical officer having scribed a medico-legal report or a necropsy report is required to prove each and every bit of the descriptions/contents, so as to prove the said documents, the reason being that the reports prepared by him do not have the coverage of provision of section 510, Cr.P.C., which underlines that "any document purporting to be a report, under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government or of the Chief Chemist of Pakistan, Security Printing Corporation Limited or any Serologist, finger print expert or fire-arm expert appointed by Government upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may without calling him as a witness, be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other .Proceeding under this Code." It is further provided that "the Court may if it considers necessary in the interest of justice summon and examine the person by whom such report has been made. "
10. The DW does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in section 510 Cr.P.C., therefore, he has to depose about the contents of Exh.DW4/A and petitioner/complainant shall be within her right to cross-examine him so as to shake his credibility, if possible. Merely by tendering the said document in evidence, without saying a word to the contents thereof by the DW, it would not be possible for the trial court to assess the evidentiary value thereof.
11. The petitioner appears to have shown unnecessary haste in raising three-pronged objection, in mentioned terms without anticipating the intricacies and fallout thereof, probably bearing in mind that the statement of the defence witness might by brought to a pre-mature end. Who can deny that Exh.DW4/A had been generated by an automated information system and not by the said defence witness. How could it be presumed that D.W.4 would not say a word in his statement as to how and in what capacity he was linked with the preparation and production of the said record (Exh.DW4/A) in evidence before the court nor could it be objected to speculatively that he could not prove the contents thereof. All said and done by the petitioner, as to afore-referred objection(s) is a circumstance which has been rightly dealt with by the learned trial court through the impugned order/observation, at noted stage of the trial. The titled petition looks hollow at its base, hence, it merits dismissal. Done accordingly.