AFTAB AHM ED GORAR, J. Applicant Fazal Ali filed the instant Criminal Revision Application under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. with the prayer to set aside the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in Criminal Case No.53 of 2020, whereby the learned IInd Judicial Magistrate/MTMC, Malir Karachi while recording the deposition of Investigating Officer PW-16, had sustained the objection of the learned defence counsel for production of USB/DVD as evidence.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the trial court while sustaining the objection of learned defence counsel has not applied its judicial mind. Learned counsel reiterated the grounds mentioned in the memo of instant criminal revision application therefore the same are not necessary to reproduce.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly sustained the objection on production of USB/DVD at the stage of recording of evidence. He further submitted that the USB/DVD which the learned counsel for the applicant wanted to produce were not listed in the challan; the applicant has challenged the order dated 18.2.2021 directly in this Hon'ble Court whereas the remedy lies with the appellate Court; moreover, the instant revision application has been filed after two months of passing the order.
Lastly, he prayed that the instant criminal revision application may be dismissed as the same is not maintainable. The learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh while adopting the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also supported the impugned order.
5. Perusal of record reveals that in this case after the investigation completed, interim challan was submitted, thereafter final challan was submitted and later on supplementary challan was submitted by the Investigating Officer but nothing about the USB/DVD has been mentioned in the above three challans and now when the evidence of PW-16 was being recorded, the applicant brought the above USB/DVD.
6. A perusal of the Criminal Procedure Code demonstrates that there is no provision available for a witness to directly seek production of additional documents during the course of trial and at the time of recording of his/her evidence. Permitting such production of additional documents by the witnesses directly would prejudice the accused persons by depriving them of a fair opportunity to prepare their defence. The whole purpose of filing of charge-sheet, upon completion of investigation along with documents upon which the prosecution desires to place reliance, would be defeated if witnesses are permitted to directly produce additional documents in such a manner. The additional documents could be produced by following the procedure of further investigation as contemplated under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the Prosecutor taking a call as to whether such documents need to be produced in order to prove the charge against the accused.
7. In view of above discussion, there appears no ground to interfere in the impugned order as no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned trial court while passing the impugned order.
8. On 28th October, 2021, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by a short order, the instant Criminal Revision Application was dismissed with directions to the trial court to proceed and decide the matter in accordance with law. Above are the reasons for the said short order.