ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, HCJ.--- Civil Review Petition No. 544 of 2019 We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. No ground for review is made out. Dismissed.
Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. 8951, 8952 and 8953 of 2019 in Civil Review Petitions No. 600, 601 and 602 of 2019
2. These miscellaneous applications are allowed in the terms prayed for therein.
Civil Review Petitions No. 600, 601 and 602 of 2019
3. The main grievances voiced through these review petitions are that the petitioner had not been issued any notice before passage of the order under review and that the order under review has the tendency of tying the hands of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in exercise of its jurisdiction and in choosing the various options legally available to it in the matter of deciding the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence recorded by an Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the order under review passed by this Court it may straightaway be observed that the Constitution Petitions wherein the order under review had been passed had never been admitted to regular hearing because this Court had found that the stage was not appropriate for interference in the matter by this Court. In this context it had clearly been observed by this Court in the order under review as follows: "15. In the end we find that it may not be an appropriate stage for this Court to interfere in the matter of the relevant video and its effects, particularly when the said video may have relevance to a criminal appeal presently sub judice before the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad. A criminal investigation is already being conducted into the matter by the Federal Investigation Agency , some other offences or illegalities under some other laws referred to by the learned Attorney-General might also entail inquiries or investigations by the comp etent agencies or fora and any probe into the matter by a Commission to be constituted by the Government or by this Court may end up only with an opinion which may have no relevance or admissibility in the relevant appeal pending before the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad. In this view of the matter all these petitions are disposed of with the observations made above."
As the relevant Constitution Petitions had never been admitted to regular hearing, therefore, there was hardly any occasion for issuing any notice in that regard to the petitioner , particularly when no order adverse to the petitioner was being passed.
5. As regards mentioning in the order under review the precedent cases pertaining to relevance and admissibility in evidence of an audio tape or video suffice it to observe that the said part of the order under review was meant only to be a compendium of the legal opinion coming to our notice on the subject which might not be exhaustive and the door of further legal interpretation on the subject was not, and could not be, closed in that regard. In this context the following parts of the order under review may be reproduced here for facility of reference: "9. ------ Admissibility of an audio tape or video in evidence before a court of law and the mode and manner of proving the same before the court are issues which have been discussed in many a case in this country and abroad and a summary of the case-law on the subject may advantageously be recorded here chronologically ."
"11. The, precedent cases mentioned above show that in the matter of proving an audio tape or video before a court of law the following requirements are insisted upon:------"
6. As far as the ground regarding tying the hands of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in exercise of its jurisdiction and in choosing the various options legally available to it in the matter of 'deciding the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence is concerned the following part of the order under review may allay any apprehension entertained by the petitioner in that regard: "13. --------W e would not like to comment on these aspects any further as the choices available with the High Court in the above mentioned eventualities would lie within the jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court and such choices would be exercised by it on the basis of the facts found and the conclusions reached by it."
7. Through these review petitions it has inter alia been prayed by the petitioner that: "In these circumstances it needs to be clarified that nothing in the order dated 23.08.2019 is to be construed as precluding the Petitioner from agitating any of the questions raised hereinabov e, or stemming from or related thereto, before the learned Appellate Court, or any other court or authority , before whom any such question is raised, shall decide the same, without in any manner being influenced by anything said, or finding given, by this august Court in the order dated 23.08.2019."
Although such a clarification is hardly called for in view of what has already been observed in this respect in the order under review yet, in the interests of justice, the clarification sought for above is hereby granted.
8. These review petitions are disposed of the terms noted above.