Crl. Misc. No. 60825/M/2021
Mian Tariq Aziz Vs. The State etc.
2024 YLR 1264
It is trite that a single act can simultaneously trigger both civil and criminal legal action. “Proceedings for a civil wrong or a public wrong (offence) are independent and not mutually exclusive. Each set of proceedings has its own procedures, standards, and consequences.” The standard of evidence to determine the civil liability is the preponderance of evidence. In contrast, a criminal conviction is predicated on a higher standard of guilt, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt, because it results in the loss of liberty.
The following principles may be deduced from the cases cited above
(i) The object of civil proceedings is to enforce the civil rights of the people, while the purpose of criminal proceedings is to punish the offender for committing an offence.
(ii) The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and section 561-A Cr.P.C. to stay criminal proceedings to meet the ends of justice where civil litigation is pending.
(iii) No universal rule says that if the subject matter of a civil suit and a criminal case is the same or similar, the criminal proceedings must be automatically stayed.
(iv) The decision to stay the criminal proceedings is entirely at the court’s discretion. The guiding principle, however, is whether the accused would be prejudiced if the proceedings continue. If his criminal liability is dependent on the outcome of civil litigation or is so inextricably linked with it that there is a danger of grave injustice if there is a conflict of decisions, criminal proceedings must be held in abeyance.
(v) If prima facie an offence has been committed, the ordinary course of the trial should not be impeded by resorting to the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction or the provisions of section 561-A Cr.P.C.
Articles 61, 78, and 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, are relevant to the discourse. Article 61 addresses the circumstance in which the court must form an opinion about the person who wrote or signed a document. It states that the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed is a relevant fact. Article 78 deals with the proof of a person’s signature and handwriting. It stipulates that if a question arises whether a document has been signed or written by a certain person, his signature or handwriting, as the case may be, on that document must be proved. Article 100 attaches some presumptions to thirty years old documents.
Parliament has recently amended section 510 Cr.P.C. through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2022, 8and made the report of the forensic scientist and the handwriting expert admissible per se. As a result, their reports may be used as evidence in an inquiry, trial, or other proceedings without calling them to the witness box. However, the court may summon and examine that expert if it is necessary for justice. Even before the aforesaid amendment, the jurisprudence was that the handwriting expert’s opinion was relevant but was a weak type of evidence. It should not be treated as conclusive evidence to prove a fact.
An expert’s report, even if it is from a handwriting expert, is still an opinion that can be erroneous. Hence, it is not immune from judicial scrutiny. It’s worth is determined by the expert’s reasoning for reaching his conclusion. While interpreting section 510 Cr.P.C. (and the abovementioned amendment), on the one hand, we must distinguish between the admissibility and the procedure for adducing the handwriting expert’s report in evidence and, on the other hand, its probative value. The law only makes the report admissible without the expert’s examination, but it is not conclusive evidence. The probative value of the report must depend upon a variety of circumstances.
I conclude that any such opinion mentioned in section 510 Cr.P.C. is not conclusive and must be evaluated by the court.
Crl. Misc. No. 60825/M/2021
Mian Tariq Aziz Vs. The State etc.
2024 YLR 1264
0 Comments