' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALi AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through this criminal revision under section 435/439, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 02.05.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, by which his application for providing copies under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. i.e. Copy of Memory Card (2GB) and copy of video, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being involved in case bearing FIR No.101/2014, dated 25.04.2014, offences under sections 302, 34 PPC, registered with Police Station City Faroodabad, District Sheikhupura, is facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. He moved an application before the learned trial court under section 265-C Cr.P.C. For provision of contents of memory card, which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, prior to the framing of the charge and the same was declined by the learned trial court vide order dated 02.05.2015, which has been impugned through this petition.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the provision of section 265-C Cr.P.C. According to which the prosecution is under obligation to provide all the copies, which are purported to be produced during the course of proceedings. Learned counsel contends that the memory card, which has been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the possession of the accused person, directly reflect the disposal of the lis as per law, therefore, the same is to be provided in terms of section 265-C Cr.P.C. In this regard, learned counsel has referred the judgment of this Court in the case of Nasrullah v. The State (1980 PCr.LJ 5) and the law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan and others v.
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 265). He further argued that bare reading of Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, reflects that modern devices are available for judicial scrutiny and contents of those has to be made available prior to commencement of trial. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner while referring the provision of Article 2(1)(b) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, that movie film/video cassette comes within the purview of document and in this regard, he has relied upon the dictum of law laid down in the case of Government of Sindh through Advocate-General, Sindh v. Fahad Naseem and 3 others (2002 PCr.LJ 1765).
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposes the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor- General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the memory card was taken into possession from the petitioner by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of the memory card be supplied to the petitioner under section 265-C Cr.P.C. Is concerned, Section 265-C Cr.P.C. Is reproduced as under:- "<i><b>265-C. Supply of statements and documents to the accused.</i></b>---(1)<i> In all cases instituted upon police report, copies of the following documents shall be supplied free of cost to the accused not later than seven days before the commencement of the trial, namely:--
(a) the first information report ;
(b) the police report;
(c) the statements of all witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164; and
(d) the inspection note recorded by an investigating officer on his first visit to the place of occurrence and the note recorded by him on recoveries made, if any ' Provided that, if any part of a statement recorded under Section 161 or Section 164 is such that its disclosure to the accused would be inexpedient in the public interest, such part of the statement shall be excluded from the copy of the statement furnished to the accused.
(2) In all cases instituted upon a complaint in writing,--
(a) the complainant shall--
(i) state in the petition of complaint the substance of the accusation, the names of his witnesses and the gist of evidence which he is likely to adduce at the trial; and
(ii) within three days of the order of the Court under Section 204 for issue of process to the accused, file in the Court for supply to the accused, as many copies of the complaint and any other document which he has filed with his complaint as the number of the accused; and
(b) copies of the complaint and any other documents which the complainant has filed therewith and the statements under Section 200 or Section 202 shall be supplied free of cost to the accused not later than seven days before the commencement of the trial."</i> ' In the case of Nasrullah v. The State (1980 PCr.LJ 5), the law laid down by this Court, is produced as under:-- <i>----Ss. 265-C, 161, 162, 164 & I72---Copies of statements, supply of---Copies of statements of all witnesses whether supporting prosecution or defence plea and whether named in challan or not- --Accused entitled to receive such copies provided such statements recorded by Police under S. 161, 164 or 172 and such statements related to witnesses supporting prosecution case---Court finding no part of such statement hit by any disability mentioned in second proviso to subsection
(1) of S.162---Such second proviso not applying to witnesses called for defence no part of their statement to be withheld."</i> ' As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that bare reading of Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, reflects that modern devices are available for judicial scrutiny and contents of those have to be made available prior to commencement of trial is concerned, the provision of Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 is reproduced as under:- <i><b>"164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices, etc: </b> In such cases as the Court may consider appropriate Court may allow to be produced any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques."</i> ' The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan and others v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 265) that:- "(f) <b><i>Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-</b></i> 164---<i>Taking notice of prevailing state of affairs having bearing on the issue involved in a case- --Scope---Reports of the relevant period from electronic and print media, could be taken into consideration---Non-denial of a solitary newspaper report, or even more reports may, not, in appropriate cases, form the basis of an opinion, one way or the other."</i> ' Apart from this, another contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that under Article 2(1)(b) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, movie film/video cassette comes within the purview of document is concerned, in the case of "Government of Sindh through Advocate-General, Sindh v.
Fahad Naseem and 3 others (2002 PCr.LJ 1765), it has been held that:- <i>"----Arts.2(1)(b) & 164---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 29---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.3(16)---Expression "document"---Photograph is a "document"---Movie film is also a photograph and cannot be excluded from purview of "document"</i>
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Court is of the considered view that the application of the petitioner regarding provision of contents of the memory card is well within the domain of law and it is covered by section 265-C Cr.P.C, the copy of which has to be supplied to the accused prior to the commencement of the trial, which is legal pre-requisite for the safe administration of criminal justice. The intent of the legislation is to provide an opportunity to the accused to defend himself. This aspect has been further broadened and has attained constitutional right after advent of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Hence, the instant petition is allowed, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 02.05.2015 is set aside and direction is issued to the learned trial court to provide the copy of the contents of the memory card, which was taken into possession in case bearing FIR No.101/2014, dated 25-4-2014, offences under sections 302, 34, PPC registered with Police Station City Faroodabad, District Sheikhupura, to the accused/ petitioner prior to the framing of the charge.