IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 4878 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 26.07.2021 
passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. 
D-3045/2021) 
 
 
Asim Murtaza Khan 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
 
The State through Chairman NAB, Islamabad 
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Abdul Shakoor Paracha, ASC 
 
Mr. Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
N.R. 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
06.09.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 
26.07.2021 passed by the learned High Court of Sindh whereby the 
Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the 
order of the learned Trial Court dated 22.04.2021 was affirmed.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the 
petitioner was Managing Director of Pakistan Petroleum Limited. On 
account of the alleged misappropriation, corruption and fraud in the 
acquisition of shares of a company namely Moravske Naftove Doly 
(MND) by the Pakistan Petroleum Limited, on the complaints of 
Chairman, Pakistan Petroleum Limited and Chairman, Securities 
and Exchange Commission of Pakistan a Reference was filed by 
NAB before the learned Accountability Court Sindh, which is still 
pending adjudication. In the said Reference, the prosecution has 
Civil Petition No. 4878/2021 
2
produced Munir Hassan Ali as PW-1 for his evidence and for 
production of certain documentary evidence as mentioned in the 
seizure memo dated 16.06.2020. However, while recording the 
deposition of the said witness the petitioner objected that the said 
witness does not hold a proper authorization from the Board of 
Directors of Pakistan Petroleum Limited and the same may be 
produced. In this regard, he filed an application under Section 94 
Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court but the same stood dismissed vide 
order dated 22.04.2021. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his 
application, he filed Constitution Petition before the learned High 
Court of Sindh, Karachi, which also met the same fate. Hence, this 
petition.  
3. 
 
The crux of the arguments advanced by learned counsel 
for the petitioner is that as Munir Hassan Ali (PW-1), who was 
supposed to produce certain documents during trial, was not 
properly authorized by the Pakistan Petroleum Limited, therefore, 
the said documents should not be exhibited and are inadmissible in 
evidence. He further contended that the objection was raised at the 
first instance and the learned Trial Court ought to have first 
recorded the objections raised by the petitioner and then proceeded 
with the trial. In support of the contentions, learned counsel relied 
upon Hayatullah Vs. State (2018 SCMR 2092).   
4. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at 
some length and have perused the available record.  
 
 
So far as the argument of learned counsel for the 
petitioner that as Munir Hassan Ali (PW-1) was not properly 
authorized by the Board of Directors of Pakistan Petroleum Limited, 
therefore, the documents produced by him are inadmissible in 
evidence is concerned, the learned High Court has very ably dealt 
with this issue and held that as it is a criminal case, the production 
of evidence is to be considered on the touchstone of respective law 
pertaining to the collection and production of evidence in a criminal 
case for which Section 94 of Cr.P.C. is relevant. The High Court has 
rightly held that there is no need for the investigators to seek any 
authorization for production and seizure of record even from a court 
if the collection and seizure is needed from a company other than a 
banking company and admittedly Pakistan Petroleum Limited is not 
Civil Petition No. 4878/2021 
3
a banking company. So far as the presumption as to documents 
produced as record of evidence, the learned High Court while relying 
on Article 91 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, rightly 
observed as follows:- 
“9. 
It is noteworthy that the above provision of law has 
also two-fold application. One pertains to the production of a 
document by a witness before a court while the other speaks 
about receiving such evidence by an officer authorized by 
law i.e. the investigating officer. If such document pertains to 
be a record or a memorandum of the evidence, and the same 
fulfill the other requirements of the aforementioned statutory 
provision, the presumption of genuineness will be attached to 
it as such the same may be considered as admissible 
evidence. Nevertheless, such presumption is a rebuttable 
presumption, as such, after production and exhibiting such 
document, its veracity is to be judged by weighing all the 
aspects including objection, relevancy and other factors. 
During the investigation, the investigators are duty-bound to 
collect every material including documentary evidence (either 
primary or secondary) and for their production, in court the 
prosecutor must consider the factors attached to its 
admissibility.   
 
5. 
 
It is admitted position that the trial is still pending 
adjudication, therefore, we do not want to comment upon the merits 
of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either side. In the 
interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to direct that the disputed 
question regarding authorization and admissibility of evidence may 
be decided by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court is 
directed to hear the objections of the petitioner and the other side 
and decide the same in accordance with law. The learned Trial 
Court is further directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. So 
far as the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the 
petitioner is concerned, the same is to the effect that inadmissible 
evidence should not come on the record and if any party tenders 
such evidence during the trial, the other party should immediately 
raise objection to the admissibility of such evidence and the court 
should decide the same before proceeding further. However, as 
stated above, the same is not the case here because in the instant 
Civil Petition No. 4878/2021 
4
case the disputed questions are yet to be decided by the learned 
Trial Court. With these observations, this petition stands disposed 
of. The above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even 
date.   
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
6th of September, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram