' In continuation of my order dated 10-9-2002. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Court has got vast powers under section 540, Cr.P.C. To allow any party to produce and submit documents before the trial Court at any stage. He has also relied upon 2000 SCMR 468 and 2000 SCM R 1969. Learned counsel submits that in the above said judgments the Honourable Supreme Court has allowed the complainant to submit the documents, while referring to judgment 2000 SCM R 1969, he submits that in case of invasion on the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan the accused were acquitted by the three Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court and thereafter the Honourable Supreme Court on suo mow reviewed the order, summoned the accused, recorded the additional evidence and also got placed on record some documents. He submits that in view of the above said judgments referred by him the order passed by the learned trial Court is justified and legal one.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submits that judgment of 2000 SCMR 468 cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable because facts of the case are totally different on the following grounds:--
(1) That in that judgment the case was a complaint case and not the police case moreover the case was not closed while in the instant case not only prosecution evidence has been closed but the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded and documents have also been produced and the case was fixed for argument.
(2) That at this stage the documents as allowed by the learned trial Court cannot be permitted to place on the record and the order is liable to be set aside, and
(3) That as far as 2000 SCM R 1969 is concerned that case was taken up by the Honourable Supreme Court while using suo motu power, this is not applicable in this Court.
' Learned counsel submitted and cited PLD 2000 SC 384 wherein their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court had held that the prosecution cannot be allowed to produce the documents when the prosecution evidence is closed.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Supports the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. For the just decision of the case I would like to refer sections 510 and 540, Cr.P.C. And Chapter 22-A which relates to trial by Sessions Court and this Court also. First of all I will reproduce section 510, Cr.P.C.
Below:-- "510. Report of Chemical Examiner, Serologist.--- Any document purporting to be a report, under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government 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 proceedings under this Code."
' According to the abovesaid section the prosecution can tender in evidence only documents i,e, the report of Fire-Arms Expert, report of Handwriting Expert, ' Report of Chemical Examiner and Report of A Serologist, at the time of closing its case. There is no mention of the fact that the prosecution shall also be allowed to submit or produce or to allow to tender in evidence some documents which were not part of the A record or was not the opinion of Expert. Now I will deal with section 540, Cr.P.C. Which is also reproduced below:-- "540. Power to summon material witness or examine person present.--- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case."
' According to this section there is no mention of the document but there is mention of witness. It is not a case where an application has been submitted by the complainant to summon the witness under section 540, Cr.P.C. Now I will refer Chapter XXII-A, Cr.P.C., which deals with the trials before the High Court and Court of Session. A bare perusal of said chapter would show that after the conclusion of prosecution evidence the Public Prosecutor would only tender in evidence the documents which have been mentioned in section 510, Cr.P.C. So all the above said procedural law and sections which I have mentioned above would show that the prosecution cannot be allowed at this stage, when the case of the prosecution has been closed, statement of the accused has been recorded and even defence evidence, if any, has been produced by the accused to produce documents in order to rebut the defence evidence of the accused. The prosecution cannot be allowed to submit documentary evidence. If this is allowed, it will open a pandora box.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and the same is set aside. This petition is accepted.
Revision . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.