Screenshot and SMS as proof of importance in court

 سکرین شاٹ اور ایس ایم ایس کی عدالت میں بطور ثبوت اہمیت

قانون شہادت کے آرٹیکل 164 کے تحت سکرین شاٹ اور ایس ایم ایس ماڈرن ڈیوائس کی تعریف میں آتے ہیں اور عدالت انکو بطور ثبوت مان سکتی ہے
مگر ان کو بطور ثبوت ایگزیبٹ کرنے سے پہلے عدالت آرٹیکل 98 میں دیے گئے اصول کو عمل کرے گی جس کے مطابق عدالت موبائل کمپنی سے یہ تصدیق کراے گی کہ آیا جو سکرین شاٹ یا ایس ایم ایس کا سکرین شاٹ عدالت میں پیش کیا جارہا ہے وہ واقعی اسی بندے کو بھیجا گیا ہے یا نہیں بھیجا گیا
موبائل کمپنی کی تصدیق کے بعد اور اگر کسی انٹرنیٹ یا فیس بک میسج کا سکرین شاٹ ہو تو آئی ٹی محکمہ کی تصدیق کے بات ان شواہد کو بطور ثبوت مانا جاسکتا ہے
مزید اعلی عدلیہ نے بھی قرار دیا ہے کہ جب تک یہ ثابت نہ ہو کہ عدالت میں پیش کیا گیا ٹیلی گراف میسج یا سکرین شاٹ واقعی اصلی ہے تب تک اسے بطور ثبوت پیش نہیں کیا جا سکتا
1990 MLD 276,PLD 1958(S.C) 115P 139

Screenshot and SMS as proof of importance in court
Under Article 164 of Martyrdom Law, screenshots and SMS are praised by modern device and the court can accept them as proof.
But before executing them as evidence, the court will follow the rule in Article 98, according to which the court will verify from the mobile company whether a screenshot or a screenshot of SMS is being presented in the court. Is he really the same person sent or not
After verification of a mobile company and if there is a screenshot of an internet or Facebook message, these evidence can be considered as proof of the verification of the IT department.
The further High Court has declared that the telegraph message or screenshot presented in the court cannot be presented as proof until it is proven that the court is actually real.
1990 MLD 276,PLD 1958(S.C) 115P 139


Related Case Law 

(a) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (X of 1984)‑‑

‑‑‑Arts.2(4), 78 & 79‑‑Proof of documents‑‑M6de‑‑For proof of documents viz. signatures or handwritings, no specific manner of proof has been laid down by provisions of Art.78, Qanun‑e‑Shahadat‑‑ Although several modes of proof have come to be judicially recognised, yet the best one is the examination of the person who had signed or written the document‑‑Such modes of proof also include presumptive or circumstantial evidence‑‑Where a document was not duly proved by the person signing the same, but circumstances proved its execution, reliance could be placed on such a document.

Abdul Samad v. Govendra Krishna Roy A I R 1925 Cal. 452; Abdool Ali v. Abdoor Rahman 21 Suthar‑Lands Weekly Reporter 429; Karali Prosad Dutta v. E.I. Railway Company AIR 1928 Cal. 498; Govardhandas v. Ahmedi Begum AIR 1953 Hyd. 181 and Gammon Pakistan Ltd. v. Pir Khan PLD 1979 Note 113 P. 84 ref.

(b) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (X of 1984)‑‑

‑‑‑Art.129, illus (g)‑‑Presumption‑‑Where best evidence had not been produced by a party, presumption would arise, that if such evidence had been produced, it would have gone against that party.

(c) Evidence‑‑

‑‑‑Evidence not conforming to pleadings‑‑Admissibility‑‑Evidence in negation of pleadings cannot be entertained‑‑Barring exceptional eases, proof must conform to pleadings.

(d) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (X of 1984)‑‑

-----Art. 129 (e) Presumption All official acts are deemed to have been regularly performed unless the contrary is clearly established, when alone presumption would stand rebutted.

(e) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (X of 1984)‑‑

‑‑‑Art.98‑‑Presumption of fact‑‑Under provisions of Art.98, Qanun‑e‑Shahadat Court may presume that a telegraphic message forwarded, corresponds to the one delivered for despatch.

(f) Evidence‑‑

‑‑‑Burden of proof‑‑‑Rule of preponderance‑‑Where evidence produced in a case was not as effective and as detailed as it could have been, but was adequate and satisfactory, the rule of preponderance having been satisfied, the burden stood shifted to the opposite party.

Taj Bibi v. Syed Ahmad Shah 1989 SCMR 1001 rel.

(g) Banker and Customer‑‑

‑‑‑ Liability of banker to its account‑holder‑‑Doctrine of "Lex Situs" stated.

The liability between a banker and its account‑holder, subject to a contract to the contrary, is restricted to the branch where the account of the customer is maintained and where alone the banker is under obligation to pay cheques drawn on the account. The ordinary rule that it is for the debtor to find the creditor, normally, has no application to the relationship between a banker and its customer, for while the relationship between them is of debter and creditor, it is, generally, conditioned by the localisation of the debt and its becoming payable on raising of demand. Thus, if the concerned branch of a bank, having more branches than one, in the same or different countries, is made subject to any loss because of war or Force Majeure, resulting in loss or detriment to the account‑holder, the remedy stands or falls on the basis of loss to the relevant branch and the bank, as an entity, unless there be a contract to the contrary, cannot elsewhere be sued. In such situations complex questions of Private International Law are involved and two different modes of application are conceived, one followed by the English Courts namely; the "LEX SITUS" and the other advocated by Cheshire and others viz., the proper law of the contract. The approach on the basis of LEX SITUS is to treat the debt as property and determine its SITUS and then to apply the law that prevails there on the date when payment falls due. In actual application of the doctrine, SITUS shifts from place to place for different purposes and one of its determining factors is intention of the parties. Where no such intention is expressed it must he implied or imputed, on considering where the contract was made or how and where it was to be performed and in such context the nature of the transaction is also a relevant factor. As to the proper law of contract the governing principles are that such law is the law of the country in which the contract is localised and such localisation "will be indicated by what may be called the grouping of its elements, as reflected in its formation and in its terms. The country in which its elements are most densely ground will represent its natural seat‑‑‑the country with which the contract is in fact most substantially associated and in which lies its natural seat or centre of gravity.

Thus, in cases in which money is deposited, either by the account‑holder or another customer, for a specific purpose, in a particular branch, where the bank has several branches, the purpose of deposit being remittance to another branch or to another bank, where there is ample time and opportunity to effectuate the purpose of the deposit and, where, the branch, which is a part of a larger whole, fails in its duty, the aggrieved party, subject to foreign exchange laws, if any, would, in such a case, have his remedy jointly and severally against the Bank as an entity and its concerned branch.

The follow up rule, in cases of breach, is that where, before the remedy is sought, the concerned branch ceases to function or cannot be reached, the bank, as an entity, may be sued anywhere it is found to be functioning. It would then be a case of breach of contract between two parties and the party in breach may be sued anywhere it is found. LEX SITUS or the proper law of contract is applied in such cases with all their finer distinctions. Thus, where money is deposited in a branch of a bank to be telegraphically transferred to another branch it is deposited for a specific purpose and that purpose must be ensured and, if it is not, the bank as whole is liable.

Clare & Co. v. Dresdner Bank 1914‑15 AER 617: N. Joachimson v. Swiss Bank Corporation, 1921 AER Rep. 92; Arab Bank Ltd. v. Barclays Bank 1954 2 AER 226; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Harnam Singh and others AIR 1955 SC 590; Agencia Commercial International Ltd. v. Custodian of Banco Nacional Ultramarino, AIR 1970 Goa, Daman and Div 11; Indo Allied/Industries Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank AIR 1970‑All. 108; Henry Prince v. Oriental Bank Corporation 1878 3 AC 325; Capital and Counties Bank Ltd. v. Gordon 1903 AC 240; The Central Bank of India v. Multanmull Misrimull Firm 1960 1 MLJ 187 and Mount Albert v. Australian T.G.M.L.A. Society 1938 AC 224 (240‑1) ref.

(h) Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983)‑‑

‑‑‑Art.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 189 & 201‑‑Opinions of Wafaqi Mohtasib are entitled to respect but the dicta has no binding force in the nature of declarations of Superior Courts as contemplated in Art. 189 & 201 of the Constitution.

(i) Banker and Customer‑‑

‑‑‑ Remittance of amount, through telegraphic transfer from one branch of the bank to another branch of the same bank‑‑Liability of bank‑‑Held: it was not necessary in the context of telegraphic transfers, for the Drawee Branch to physically receive the amount remitted‑‑Drawee Branch of the bank is thus liable to pay the entire amount deposited and sought to be remitted by telegraphic transfer.

Munawar Ghani for Plaintiffs.

Messrs Haider Mata & Co. for Defendants.

Date of hearing: 29th November, 1989.

Post a Comment

0 Comments

close