| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 3076 = 1973 SLD 3076 = 1973 PCRLJ 482 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 484/H of 1972, decided on 20th September 1972.
Presented By: Muhammad Akram and Mushtaq Hussain Munir, JJ
Hussain Ali Chagla v. District Magistrate, Lahore P L D 1966 Lah. 309 rel. Emperor v. Shibnath Banerjt and others A I R 1945 P C 156 ref. Sh. Saeed Akhtar, Malik Aslam Hayat, Raja Khurshid Alam and Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner. M. B. Zaman; A.-G., Sh. Ijaz Ahmad, Kh. Muhammad Tufail, Kamal Mustafa and A/'tab Gul for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Maulvi Ehsanul Haq for
Respondent No. 3.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 484/H of 1972, decided on 20th September 1972.
Presented By: Muhammad Akram and Mushtaq Hussain Munir, JJ
Hussain Ali Chagla v. District Magistrate, Lahore P L D 1966 Lah. 309 rel. Emperor v. Shibnath Banerjt and others A I R 1945 P C 156 ref. Sh. Saeed Akhtar, Malik Aslam Hayat, Raja Khurshid Alam and Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner. M. B. Zaman; A.-G., Sh. Ijaz Ahmad, Kh. Muhammad Tufail, Kamal Mustafa and A/'tab Gul for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Maulvi Ehsanul Haq for
Respondent No. 3.
BEGUM AGHA ABDUL KARIM SHORISH AND 2 KASHMIRI--Petitioner
VERSUS
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE others----Respondents
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 159
Law: Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971
Section: r 32 (1) (b)
Law: West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960
Section: 16
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 500, 504
(a) Criminal trial-Evidence- Petitioner raising objection against admissibility of tape-recorded disputed speech produced by prosecution witness in Court--Objection, held, has no force-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 159. On principle there can be no difference of a trustworthy witness when he faithfully reproduces from what is recorded by him in his own memory or replayed from a tape-recording pre pared by him with the help of a scientific device or automatic instrument that may completely ensure its faithful recording and reproduction in Court. In a proper case under suitable circum stances a witness is permitted by law to refresh his memory from what was taken down by him in pen or ink. There is no reason why he cannot be allowed to refresh his memory by playing back from tape-record prepared by him under-identical circumstances: Andrews v. United States 105 A M L R 322 ; G. & A. R. C. O. v. Anderson 117 A M S R 642 ; Brindley v. State 193 Ala. 43; Buxton v. Cumming (1927) 71 So. Jo. 232 ; R, v. Mills (1962) 3 A11 E R 298 ; R. v. Maqsud Ali (1965) 2 All E R 464 and S. Partap Singh v. The State of Punjab A I R 1964 S C 72 rel. (b) Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, r 32 (1) (b)-Preventive detention, scope of-Object of preventive detention and preventive arrest under ordinary laws altogether deferent-Contention, that preventive detention of petitioner could not be ordered at all as long as he was kept under arrest for any offence under ordinary penal laws-Repelled - West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, S. 16 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 500/504. There is no rule which lays down that no order of preven tive detention can be passed against a person who is already under arrest under the ordinary law of the land. Indeed the fact that the person was already under arrest might give rise to an inference in a suitable case that the detention order subsequently passed against him was non bona fide and was made for ulterior reasons and collateral purposes. But independently of this question of the male fides, there is no bar to the passing of a detention order against a person who is already under arrest under the ordinary law. Indeed the scope…