The Supreme Court held that under Section 94, Cr.P.C., an accused could request the production of documents at any stage of the trial.
دفعہ 94 ض ف کے تحت دستاویزات کی طلبی — ٹرائل کے کسی بھی مرحلے پر ملزم کا حق
تمہید
فوجداری انصاف کے نظام میں منصفانہ ٹرائل اس وقت ممکن ہوتا ہے جب عدالت کے سامنے تمام متعلقہ اور ضروری مواد موجود ہو۔ قانونِ فوجداری کی دفعات اسی مقصد کے تحت ترتیب دی گئی ہیں تاکہ نہ صرف استغاثہ بلکہ ملزم کو بھی مؤثر دفاع کا پورا موقع میسر آ سکے۔ سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا فیصلہ 2023 S C M R 1676 اسی اصول کی واضح تشریح کرتا ہے، جس میں دفعہ 94 ضابطہ فوجداری کے دائرہ کار کو غیر معمولی وضاحت کے ساتھ بیان کیا گیا ہے۔
مقدمہ کے پس منظر اور حقائق
زیرِ نظر مقدمہ میں ملزم چوہدری محمد عثمان، ڈرگ ریگولیٹری اتھارٹی آف پاکستان ایکٹ 2012 اور ڈرگز ایکٹ 1976 کے تحت ٹرائل کا سامنا کر رہے تھے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے دفعہ 265-C ض ف کے تحت استغاثہ کی فراہم کردہ دستاویزات کی نقول ملزم کو دے دیں اور مقدمہ فردِ جرم کے مرحلے پر تھا۔ اس مرحلے سے قبل ملزم نے دفعہ 94 ض ف کے تحت ایک درخواست دائر کی جس میں استغاثہ اور شکایت کنندہ کو 23 مخصوص دستاویزات پیش کرنے کا حکم دینے کی استدعا کی گئی۔
ملزم کا مؤقف یہ تھا
کہ یہ دستاویزات اس امر کا تعین کرنے کے لیے ضروری ہیں کہ آیا استغاثہ متعلقہ قوانین کے تحت قانونی طریقہ کار کے مطابق شروع کیا گیا یا نہیں۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے یہ درخواست مسترد کر دی، جس کے خلاف ملزم نے ہائی کورٹ سے رجوع کیا۔ اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے ٹرائل کورٹ کا حکم کالعدم قرار دیتے ہوئے دستاویزات کی فراہمی کا حکم دیا، جس پر ریاست نے سپریم کورٹ میں اپیل دائر کی۔
سپریم کورٹ کے سامنے قانونی سوالات
سپریم کورٹ کے سامنے بنیادی طور پر دو اہم قانونی سوالات تھے۔ پہلا یہ کہ آیا ٹرائل کے آغاز یا فردِ جرم سے قبل ملزم دفعہ 94 ض ف کے تحت دستاویزات کی طلبی کی درخواست دے سکتا ہے یا نہیں۔ دوسرا سوال یہ تھا کہ آیا دفعہ 265-F(7) ض ف، جو دفاع کے مرحلے پر ایسی درخواست کی اجازت دیتی ہے، دفعہ 94 کے اختیار کو محدود کرتی ہے یا نہیں۔
دفعہ 94 ض ف کا دائرہ اختیار
سپریم کورٹ نے دفعہ 94 ض ف کا باریک بینی سے جائزہ لیتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ اس دفعہ میں ٹرائل یا انکوائری کے کسی خاص مرحلے کی کوئی قید موجود نہیں۔ قانون میں لفظ “Whenever” کا استعمال واضح طور پر اس بات کی نشاندہی کرتا ہے کہ عدالت کسی بھی مرحلے پر، خواہ وہ ٹرائل سے پہلے ہو یا دورانِ ٹرائل، دستاویزات کی طلبی کا حکم دے سکتی ہے، بشرطیکہ عدالت اس نتیجے پر پہنچے کہ یہ دستاویزات انکوائری یا ٹرائل کے مقاصد کے لیے ضروری یا مفید ہیں۔
عدالت کا غیر جانبدار کردار
سپریم کورٹ نے اس اصول کو بھی دو ٹوک انداز میں واضح کیا کہ عدالت نہ استغاثہ کی نمائندہ ہوتی ہے اور نہ ہی ملزم کی، بلکہ وہ انصاف کی فراہمی کے لیے ایک غیر جانبدار ادارہ ہے۔ اس لیے اگر کوئی دستاویز عدالت کو سچ تک پہنچنے میں معاون ہو، تو یہ غیر متعلق نہیں کہ وہ دستاویز استغاثہ کے حق میں ہو یا ملزم کے دفاع میں۔ دفعہ 94 کے تحت کسی بھی فریق کی درخواست پر دستاویز طلب کی جا سکتی ہے، اگر وہ عدالت کو مطمئن کر دے کہ اس کی ضرورت یا افادیت موجود ہے۔
دفعہ 265-C اور دفعہ 94 کا باہمی تعلق
عدالت نے اس نکتے پر بھی روشنی ڈالی کہ بعض اوقات استغاثہ دانستہ یا نادانستہ طور پر کچھ ایسی دستاویزات پولیس رپورٹ کے ساتھ منسلک نہیں کرتا جو ملزم کی بے گناہی یا الزام کے بے بنیاد ہونے کی نشاندہی کر سکتی ہیں۔ ایسی دستاویزات چونکہ دفعہ 265-C کے تحت فراہم نہیں کی جاتیں، اس لیے اگر ملزم کو ٹرائل کے اختتام یا دفاع کے مرحلے تک انتظار پر مجبور کیا جائے تو یہ انصاف کے منافی ہوگا۔ دفعہ 94 اسی خلا کو پُر کرنے کے لیے موجود ہے۔
دفعہ 265-F(7) اور دفعہ 94 میں فرق
سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ دفعہ 265-F(7) ض ف دفاع کے مرحلے پر ملزم کو دستاویزات یا گواہوں کی طلبی کا ایک اضافی موقع فراہم کرتی ہے، لیکن یہ دفعہ کسی طور بھی دفعہ 94 کے اختیار کو محدود یا ختم نہیں کرتی۔ قانون ساز نے نہ تو دفعہ 94 کو کسی دوسری دفعہ کے تابع بنایا ہے اور نہ ہی دفعہ 265-F(7) کو بالادست قرار دیا ہے۔ دونوں دفعات اپنے دائرہ کار میں الگ اور ہم آہنگ ہیں، نہ کہ متصادم۔
ہائی کورٹ اور ٹرائل کورٹ کے احکامات کا جائزہ
سپریم کورٹ نے یہ قرار دیا کہ ٹرائل کورٹ نے دفعہ 94 کے دائرہ کار کو سمجھے بغیر درخواست مسترد کر کے اصولی غلطی کی۔ تاہم، ہائی کورٹ اگرچہ دفعہ 94 کی تشریح میں درست تھی، لیکن اس نے بھی ایک قانونی خامی کا ارتکاب کیا کیونکہ اس نے ہر دستاویز کے بارے میں یہ طے کیے بغیر کہ آیا وہ واقعی ضروری یا مفید ہے، براہِ راست دستاویزات کی فراہمی کا حکم دے دیا۔
مقدمہ کا حتمی فیصلہ
سپریم کورٹ نے ریاست کی درخواست کو اپیل میں تبدیل کرتے ہوئے جزوی طور پر منظور کیا۔ ہائی کورٹ کا وہ حصہ برقرار رکھا گیا جس میں ٹرائل کورٹ کا حکم کالعدم قرار دیا گیا تھا، تاہم دستاویزات کی فوری فراہمی والا حصہ ختم کر دیا گیا۔ ٹرائل کورٹ کو ہدایت کی گئی کہ وہ ملزم کی درخواست پر دوبارہ غور کرے اور ہر دستاویز کے حوالے سے یہ طے کرے کہ آیا اس کی طلبی انکوائری یا ٹرائل کے مقاصد کے لیے واقعی ضروری یا مفید ہے۔
نتیجہ اور قانونی اہمیت
یہ فیصلہ فوجداری قانون میں ایک سنگِ میل کی حیثیت رکھتا ہے، کیونکہ اس میں واضح کر دیا گیا ہے کہ دفعہ 94 ض ف ایک وسیع اور مؤثر اختیار ہے جو ٹرائل کے کسی بھی مرحلے پر استعمال کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو تقویت دیتا ہے کہ انصاف کا تقاضا صرف سزا دینا نہیں بلکہ سچ تک پہنچنا ہے، اور اس مقصد کے لیے ضروری دستاویزات کی بروقت فراہمی ناگزیر ہے۔
**Case Detail:**
In "The STATE Versus Chaudhry Muhammad Usman" (2023 S C M R 1676), the respondent sought the production of documents before the trial commenced, under Section 94 of the Cr.P.C., which the trial court denied. The High Court reversed this decision, leading the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.
**Court Order:**
The Supreme Court held that under Section 94, Cr.P.C., an accused could request the production of documents at any stage of the trial if they are necessary or desirable for the trial. The case was remanded to the trial court to reassess the necessity of each document requested.
In "The STATE Versus Chaudhry MUHAMMAD USMAN" (2023 S C M R 1676), the petitioner (the State) sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Islamabad High Court dated 15.01.2020. The High Court had accepted the respondent's revision petition, which was filed against the trial court's order dated 14.05.2019. The trial court had dismissed the respondent's application under Section 265-C read with Section 94 of the Cr.P.C. for the production of certain documents.
Specifically, the State's prayer was to set aside the High Court's judgment that directed the production of the documents requested by the respondent before the commencement of the trial. The State contended that the trial court was correct in its original decision to dismiss the respondent's application for document production and sought to have this decision reinstated. The State argued that the production of the documents should be considered only at the stage of defense evidence, as provided by Section 265-F(7), Cr.P.C.
The unique point decided in "The State Versus Chaudhry Muhammad Usman" (2023 S C M R 1676) is that an accused can apply for the production of documents under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) even before the commencement of the trial or before entering on their defense. This application is permissible if the production of the document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. The Supreme Court clarified that the power of the trial court under Section 94 is not limited by the stage of the trial or by the provisions of Section 265-F(7), Cr.P.C., which allows for a similar application at the stage of defense evidence.
This decision emphasizes that Section 94 can be invoked at any stage of the inquiry or trial, ensuring that justice is served by allowing the production of necessary documents regardless of the trial's progress. This interpretation ensures that both the prosecution and the defense have a fair opportunity to present all relevant evidence, facilitating a more just and comprehensive judicial process.
2023 S C M R 1676
The STATE Versus
Chaudhry MUHAMMAD USMAN
Criminal Petition No. 112 of 2020
Summons to produce documents---Powers of Trial Court under section 94, Cr.P.C.--- Scope--- Even before the commencement of the trial, an accused can apply to the Trial Court to exercise its power under section 94, Cr.P.C., and direct the prosecution or the complainant to produce a document, in its or his possession or power, which is not covered under section 265-C, Cr.P.C., if the production of that document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial---Even before entering on his defence, an accused can make an application for the production of a document under section 94, Cr.P.C. despite the provisions of section 265-F(7), Cr.P.C., which provides a similar opportunity to him at the stage of defence evidence.
A bare reading of section 94, Cr.P.C. shows that there is no limitation as to the stage of the inquiry or trial when a court can, in the exercise of its power under this Section, make an order for the production of any document. The only condition for the exercise of the power under section 94 is that the production of the document must be necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial before the court. The word 'whenever' in section 94 clearly indicates that a court can exercise the power of requiring the production of any document under this section at any stage of the inquiry or trial.
Further, section 94 does not restrict as to whose point of view, whether of the prosecution or the accused, the required document may be necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. A court being a neutral arbiter does not act for either the prosecution or the accused but for the dispensation of justice. And for the dispensation of justice, the court is to ascertain the truth in respect of the matter under inquiry or trial before it. The production of a document that would facilitate the court in this regard is to be considered necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. It is immaterial whether the production of such a document would support the prosecution case or the defence of the accused. Therefore, any party may at any stage of the inquiry or trial apply to the court, under section 94, for the production of a document and is entitled to its production if it satisfies the court that the production of that document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of such inquiry or trial
There may be cases in which owing to dishonesty, negligence or any other reason, the prosecution does not produce certain documents with the police report, which may establish that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence or the charge against the accused is groundless, and the production thereof is thus necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. But because such documents are not filed with the police report, the same will not be supplied to the accused under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. In such cases, it would not be just and fair to the accused to reject his application for the production of such documents and to let him undergo the ordeal of protracted trial proceedings and wait for the stage of defence evidence. Similarly, the documents which are not produced by the prosecution with the police report but are relevant to the matter under the inquiry or trial and to use them for his defence, the accused is legally required to confront the prosecution witnesses with those documents in their cross-examination. In such a circumstance also, it would be in the interest of justice that the application of the accused made under section 94 for their production is allowed. Otherwise, it would incur unnecessary delay, expense and inconvenience to recall the prosecution witnesses at the stage of defence evidence only for the purpose of confronting them with such documents.
The provision of subsection (7) of section 265-F, Cr.P.C., under which the accused, after entering on his defence, can apply to the trial court to issue any process for compelling the production of any document, does not in any way affect the power of the trial court under section 94(1), Cr.P.C. The provisions of section 94(1) have not been made subordinate by the legislature by the use of the expression, 'Subject to the other provisions of this Code', nor have the provisions of section 265-F(7) been given any overriding effect by using therein the expression, 'Notwithstanding anything contained in other provisions of this Code'. Section 265-F(7), therefore, neither controls nor limits the power of a court under section 94(1). In essence, the provisions of these two Sections differ from each other in their extent and scope. They are not opposed to each other. Section 94(1) affords both the parties to an inquiry or trial (not to the accused alone) the opportunity of causing the production of any document at any stage of such inquiry or trial, with the condition that the party applying for it must satisfy the court that the production of the required document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. Section 265-F(7), on the other hand, only gives the accused another similar opportunity at the stage of his defence subject to a lesser condition, which is that his application should not be for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, dated 15.01.2020, (impugned judgment) whereby the High Court has accepted the revision petition of the respondent filed against an order of the trial court, dated 14.05.2019. The trial court had, by its order, dismissed an application of the respondent filed under section 265-C read with section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) for the production of certain documents. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the said application of the respondent.
2. Briefly, the facts necessary to be stated for the decision of the present petition are that the respondent, along with other accused persons, was facing trial for certain offences punishable under the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 and the Drugs Act, 1976. The trial court delivered to the accused persons, including the respondent, the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution as mandated by section 265-C, Cr.P.C., and adjourned the hearing for framing of the charge. However, before the charge was framed, the respondent made an application under section 265-C read with section 94 of the Cr.P.C., for directing the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan, on whose complaint the criminal proceedings had been initiated, to produce 23 documents mentioned in the application. The respondent asserted in the application that the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act and the Drugs Act provided a legal mechanism for launching any prosecution thereunder, and that the said documents were necessary for the purpose of forming an opinion by the court as to whether the prosecution was lawful under the said Acts.
3. By its order dated 14.05.2019, the trial court dismissed the application of the respondent with the observation that in compliance with section 265-C, Cr.P.C., the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution had been supplied to all the accused persons and that it was the prosecution which had to lead its evidence at first and thereafter the accused persons would be provided an opportunity to adduce or summon the evidence required for their defence. The respondent challenged the order of the trial court in the High Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court observed that the trial court had not given any valid justification for withholding the production of the documents mentioned in the application, which were necessary to enable the respondent to ask the relevant questions to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination. The High Court, thus, allowed the revision petition of the respondent and accepted his application for the production of the documents by the impugned judgment. Hence, the State, i.e., the prosecution, filed the present petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the case.
5. The questions of law that have fallen for our consideration are: (i) whether before the commencement of the trial, an accused can apply to the trial court to exercise its power under section 94, Cr.P.C., and direct the prosecution or the complainant to produce any document, in its or his possession or power, which is not covered under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. and (ii) whether before entering on his defence, an accused can make an application for the production of any document under section 94 despite the provisions of section 265-F(7), Cr.P.C., which provides a similar opportunity to him at the stage of defence evidence.
6. Before embarking upon the discussion on these questions, we find it appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of sections 94(1) and 265-F(7), Cr.P.C., for the convenience of reference:
94. Summons to produce document or other thing: (1) Whenever any Court, or, any officer incharge of a police-station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order: .............
265-F. Evidence for prosecution: ....................................
(7) If the accused, or any one of several accused, after entering on his defence, applies to the Court to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for examination or the production of any document or other thing, the Court shall issue such process unless it considers that the application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice, such ground shall be recorded by the Court in writing.
A bare reading of section 94 shows that there is no limitation as to the stage of the inquiry or trial when a court can, in the exercise of its power under this Section, make an order for the production of any document. The only condition for the exercise of the power under section 94 is that the production of the document must be necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial before the court. The word 'whenever' in section 94 clearly indicates that a court can exercise the power of requiring the production of any document under this Section at any stage of the inquiry or trial.
7. Further, section 94 does not restrict as to whose point of view, whether of the prosecution or the accused, the required document may be necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. A court being a neutral arbiter does not act for either the prosecution or the accused but for the dispensation of justice. And for the dispensation of justice, the court is to ascertain the truth in respect of the matter under inquiry or trial before it. The production of a document that would facilitate the court in this regard is to be considered necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. It is immaterial whether the production of such a document would support the prosecution case or the defence of the accused. Therefore, any party may at any stage of the inquiry or trial apply to the court, under section 94, for the production of a document and is entitled to its production if it satisfies the court that the production of that document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of such inquiry or trial.
8. There may be cases in which owing to dishonesty, negligence or any other reason, the prosecution does not produce certain documents with the police report, which may establish that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence or the charge against the accused is groundless, and the production thereof is thus necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. But because such documents are not filed with the police report, the same will not be supplied to the accused under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. In such cases, it would not be just and fair to the accused to reject his application for the production of such documents and to let him undergo the ordeal of protracted trial proceedings and wait for the stage of defence evidence. Similarly, the documents which are not produced by the prosecution with the police report but are relevant to the matter under the inquiry or trial and to use them for his defence, the accused is legally required to confront the prosecution witnesses with those documents in their cross-examination. In such a circumstance also, it would be in the interest of justice that the application of the accused made under section 94 for their production is allowed. Otherwise, it would incur unnecessary delay, expense and inconvenience to recall the prosecution witnesses at the stage of defence evidence only for the purpose of confronting them with such documents.
9. The provision of subsection (7) of section 265-F, Cr.P.C., under which the accused, after entering on his defence, can apply to the trial court to issue any process for compelling the production of any document, does not in any way affect the power of the trial court under section 94(1), Cr.P.C. The provisions of section 94(1) have not been made subordinate by the legislature by the use of the expression, 'Subject to the other provisions of this Code', nor have the provisions of section 265-F(7) been given any overriding effect by using therein the expression, 'Notwithstanding anything contained in other provisions of this Code'. Section 265-F(7), therefore, neither controls nor limits the power of a court under section 94(1). In essence, the provisions of these two Sections differ from each other in their extent and scope. They are not opposed to each other. Section 94(1) affords both the parties to an inquiry or trial (not to the accused alone) the opportunity of causing the production of any document at any stage of such inquiry or trial, with the condition that the party applying for it must satisfy the court that the production of the required document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. Section 265-F(7), on the other hand, only gives the accused another similar opportunity at the stage of his defence subject to a lesser condition, which is that his application should not be for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice.
10. We thus answer both the questions in affirmative and conclude on question (i) that even before the commencement of the trial, an accused can apply to the trial court to exercise its power under section 94, Cr.P.C., and direct the prosecution or the complainant to produce a document, in its or his possession or power, which is not covered under section 265-C, Cr.P.C., if the production of that document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial and on question (ii) that even before entering on his defence, an accused can make an application for the production of a document under section 94 despite the provisions of section 265-F(7), Cr.P.C., which provides a similar opportunity to him at the stage of defence evidence.
11. When we examine the order of the trial court and the judgment of the High Court in the light of the above legal position, we find that the trial court erred in principle in dismissing the application of the respondent without correctly understanding the scope of the provisions of section 94, Cr.P.C., whereas the High Court though correctly understood the scope of these provisions but fell into an error in applying the same to the facts of the case by allowing the application of the respondent without first determining how the production of each of the 23 documents mentioned in the application was necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial. The respondent has asserted in the application that the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act and the Drugs Act provide a legal mechanism for launching any prosecution thereunder, and that the said documents are necessary for the purpose of forming an opinion by the court as to whether the prosecution was launched lawfully under the said Acts. The order allowing or dismissing the application of the respondent, either in part or in toto, must address these assertions of the respondent in respect of each of the documents sought to be produced with reference to the relevant provisions of the said Acts. As this has not been done in the impugned judgment, the same is not legally sustainable. Further, we find that after explaining the scope of the provisions of section 94, Cr.P.C. and pointing out the error in the approach of the trial court, the High Court should have directed the trial court to decide the application of the respondent afresh instead of proceeding to decide the same by itself as there was no finding of the trial court whether or not the production of the documents, or any of them, sought to be produced is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the inquiry or trial.
12. For the above reasons, we convert this petition into an appeal and partly allow the same. The impugned judgment of the High Court is partly maintained and partly set aside: the part whereby it set aside the order of the trial court is maintained while the part allowing the application of the respondent is set aside, and the trial court is directed to decide the application of the respondent afresh.