Khatam Jan Vs Sher Jan and others

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

Cr.Rev.No.23-D/2026 with Cr.Misc.No.312-D/2026.

Khatam Jan Versus.

Sher Jan and others

JUDGMENT

For petitioner: Mr. Qaiser Rahim, Advocate.

For respondents: Nemo (motion case).

Date of hearing: 28.9.2026.

SADIQ ALI, J.- Through this criminal revision petition under Section 439 read with Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/ complainant (Khatam Jan) has assailed the order, dated 09.07.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, D.I.Khan, to the extent of allowing the application filed by the accused/respondents under Section 94 Cr.P.C.

2.The background of the case is that FIR No.572, dated 11.12.2025, was registered at Police Station Shorekot, D.I.Khan, under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 109, and 34 PPC, on the statement of the petitioner/ complainant. Following the completion of the investigation, the police submitted the complete challan, formal charge was framed against all four accused/

respondents, and the case was set down for prosecution evidence.

3.During the pendency of prosecution evidence, accused/respondents moved an application under Section 94 Cr.P.C., asserting that respondent Sher Jan had submitted an application regarding his innocence to the RPO D.I.Khan, which was probed by DSP Investigation (DSP Nasrullah Khan), who submitted internal reports, dated 20.04.2026, including observations on CCTV footage. They prayed for the production of these two reports. The learned trial Court, vide impugned order, dated 09.07.2026, allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/ complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order passed under Section 94 Cr.P.C.

4.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the record with his assistance, and examined the legal principles enunciated by the apex Court and High Courts.

5.The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court erred in summoning internal police investigation reports and that the order lacks clarity on how these documents will be brought on record and evaluated. The law on the exercise of power under

Section 94 Cr.P.C. is well-settled. In The State v.

Chaudhry Muhammad Usman (2023 SCMR 1676), the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that:

"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... 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."

Furthermore, as laid down by the apex Court in Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1984 SC 95), Shah Zain Bugti v. The State (PLD 2013 SC 160), and Sajid Mehmood v. The State (2022 SCMR 1882), the trial Court is not a mere passive spectator; where material documents exist that are necessary for a just decision, the Court can invoke Section 94 or Section 540 Cr.P.C. The objection that summoning such documents amounts to "filling lacunae" is unfounded, as the paramount object is the dispensation of justice.

Therefore, the learned trial Court committed no jurisdictional error in ordering the production of the police reports. However, this Court finds merit in the petitioner's apprehension regarding the evidentiary status and procedure for bringing such documents on record. The learned trial Court correctly noted in Para 8 of its order that "mere production of a document in Court neither proves its contents nor binds the Court to

rely upon the same," and that its admissibility remains subject to the QSO, 1984. Yet, the trial Court failed to outline the mechanism of proof.

6.It is a cardinal principle of evidence law that mere production or marking/exhibition of a document does not dispense with its formal proof (Mst. Afia Ambrine v.

Additional District Judge, Sialkot, PLD 2025 Lahore 124). Under Section 94 Cr.P.C. read with Article 134 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an official or person summoned merely to produce a document does not automatically become a witness and cannot be subjected to cross-examination unless called as a witness:

"Article 134 QSO 1984: A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness."

As comprehensively explained in Muhammad Haris v.

State (PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 160 [Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]), when an authorized representative or police official appears pursuant to a process under Section 94 Cr.P.C. to produce official records, he merely deposes to the existence/availability of the document in the record. His statement is not recorded as a substantive witness of fact for either party. If either party, whether the defense or the complainant/prosecution, wishes to rely upon the contents of such internal investigation reports, or conversely, if the prosecution/complainant

seeks to challenge their veracity or claim that they were prepared improperly, the mere production under Section 94 Cr.P.C. does not conclude the matter. The party seeking to prove or challenge the contents must move the Court to summon the author of the report (e.g., the DSP Investigation) as a Court Witness (CW) under the second part of Section 540 Cr.P.C. or produce him in defense evidence under Section 265-F(7) Cr.P.C.. When such an author is summoned as a Court Witness under Section 540 Cr.P.C., both the prosecution/complainant and the defense gain the full right to cross-examine the witness, thereby fully protecting the prosecution's right of cross-examination and dispelling all apprehensions raised by the petitioner.

7.In view of the foregoing, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions and legal clarifications:

The direction of the learned trial Court ordering the production of the investigation reports under Section 94 Cr.P.C. is upheld, subject to the following procedural mandates:

i. The production of the internal investigation reports by the representative of the RPO/SP Investigation under Section 94 Cr.P.C. shall serve solely to bring the record onto the Court file and verify its formal existence in police records. ii. Pursuant to Article 134 of the QSO, 1984, the official merely producing the documents shall not

be treated as a witness of fact and shall not be subjected to cross-examination.

iii. The mere production or marking of these reports shall not amount to proof of their contents nor confer upon them the status of substantive evidence.

iv. To formally prove, exhibit, or rebut the contents of the said reports, the prosecution or the defence may, in terms of Section 265-F Cr.P.C., apply to the trial Court at the appropriate stage of trial to produce and examine the author/investigating officer (DSP Investigation) as a regular witness; or v. Alternatively, if the learned trial Court reaches to the conclusion that the said reports are necessary for just decision of the case, the learned trial Court shall, upon application by either party or suo motu, summon the author/investigating officer (DSP Investigation) as a Court Witness (CW) under Section 540 Cr.P.C., thereby ensuring that both the prosecution/complainant and the defense are provided a full opportunity to cross-examine him in accordance with law.

Announced.

Dt:28.9.2026. Sd/- Imran/* JUDGE

(S.B)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sadiq Ali