IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
C. M. A. NO. 3986 OF 2017   
IN  
C. M. A. NO. 2939 OF 2017  
IN 
CONST. P. NO. 29 OF 2016 ETC.  
(Application by Hussain Nawaz Sharif)  
 
In attendance: 
Kh. Harris Ahmad, Sr. ASC. 
Mr. Wajid Zia, Head of JIT. 
 
Mr. Aamir Aziz, Member JIT. 
 
Mr. Bilal Rasool, Member JIT. 
 
Mr. Irfan Naeem Mangi, Member JIT. 
 
Brig. M. Nauman Saeed, Member JIT. 
 
Brig. Kamran Khurshid, Member JIT. 
 
Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, A. G. for Pakistan.  
Rana Waqar, Addl. A. G. 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
14.06.2017 (Order Reserved). 
 
O R D E R   
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.- This CMA has been moved on behalf of 
Hussain Nawaz Sharif one of the respondents for issuance of an appropriate 
order directing the JIT to stop the video recording of the proceedings 
relating to examination and interrogation of witnesses and to constitute an 
independent Commission of a retired or sitting Judge of this Court to inquire 
into the circumstances leading to the leakage of his image.  
2. 
 
The learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the applicant 
contended that where Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr.P.C. have prescribed 
a manner for examination of witnesses supposed to be acquainted with 
the facts and circumstances of the case, any other manner of their 
examination would be against the law. He next contended that where 
even signing of such statement by its maker has been prohibited by the 
legislature, on the ground that it tends to bind the witness and impair his 
freedom to speak the truth in the Court, recording of such statement by 
C.M.A. NO. 3986 OF 2017 IN CMA. NO. 2939 OF 2017 
2
 
audio-video electronic means which is more circumscribing than signing 
such statement, cannot be permitted. To support his contentions the 
learned Sr. ASC placed reliance on the cases of P. Sirajuddin, etc. Vs. State 
of Madras, etc (1970 (1) Supreme Court cases 595), Ch. Razik Ram. Vs. Ch. 
Jaswant Singh Chouhan and others  (1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 769), 
Tahsildar Singh and another. Vs. State of U.P.  (AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1012 
(V 46 C 137) and Pakala Narayana Awami. Vs. Emperor  (AIR 1939 Privy 
Council 47).  
3. 
 
The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the 
Federation of Pakistan contended that modern electronic devices have 
liberated man from exhausting physical labour and made the things easier 
but where a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner that 
be done that way or not at all. Even otherwise, the learned Attorney 
General added, the Court cannot read in a statute what is not there. 
Recording of police statement by audio-video electronic means, the 
learned Attorney General maintained, would thus be out of question.  
4. 
 
We have considered the submissions of the learned Sr. ASC 
for the applicant and those of the learned Attorney General for Pakistan.  
5. 
 
Before we answer the question it is worthwhile to refer to 
Sections 161 and 162 of the Cr.P.C. which read as under :-  
 
“161. Examination of witnesses by police. (1) Any 
police officer making an investigation under this 
Chapter or any police officer not below such rank as 
the Provincial Government may, by general or 
special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the 
requisition of such officer, may examine orally any 
person supposed to be acquainted with the facts 
and circumstances of the case: ………………………  
 
(2)  
Such person shall be bound to answer all 
questions relating to such case put to him by such 
officer, other than questions the answers to which 
would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal 
charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. 
 
(3)  
The police officer may reduce into writing any 
statement made to him in the course of an 
examination under this section, and if he does so he 
shall make a separate record of the statement of 
each such person whose statement he records. 
C.M.A. NO. 3986 OF 2017 IN CMA. NO. 2939 OF 2017 
3
 
162.  Statements to police not to be signed; use of 
statements in evidence. 
 
(1)  
No statement made by any person to a police 
officer in the course of an investigation under this 
Chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by 
the person making it; nor shall any such statement or 
any record thereof, whether In a police diary or 
otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be 
used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) 
at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under 
investigation at the time when such statement was 
made: 
 
Provided that, when any witness is called for the 
prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement 
has been reduced into writing as aforesaid the Court 
shall on the request of the accused, be furnished with 
a copy thereof, in order that any part of such 
statement, if duly proved, may be used to contradict 
such witness in the manner provided by 'section 145 
of the Evidence Act, 1872. When any part of such 
statement is so used, any part thereof may also be 
used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the 
purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in 
his cross-examination:  
 
Provided, further that, if the Court is of opinion that 
any part of any such statement is not relevant to the 
subject matter of the inquiry or trial or that its 
disclosure to the accused is not essential in the 
interests of justice and is inexpedient in public 
interests, it shall record such opinion (but not the 
reasons therefor) and shall exclude such part from the 
copy of the statement furnished to the accused.] 
 
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to 
any statement falling within the provisions of section 
32, clause (1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 [or to affect 
the provisions of section 27 of that Act].” 
 
6. 
 
A reading of Section 161 Cr.P.C. would reveal that a police 
officer investigating the case may examine any person supposed to be 
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Such person 
shall be bound to the answer the questions relating to the case except the 
questions whose answers tend to expose him to a criminal charge, penalty 
or forfeiture. While reading of Section 162 Cr.P.C. would reveal that no 
statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an 
investigation shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it 
nor shall any such statement or any record thereof whether in a police 
diary or otherwise or any part of such statement or record, be used except 
C.M.A. NO. 3986 OF 2017 IN CMA. NO. 2939 OF 2017 
4
 
for the purpose of contradicting its maker in terms of Article 140 of the 
Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order. Signing of such statement by its maker is 
prohibited because it tends to bind its maker and impair his freedom to 
speak truth in the Court. Recording of such statement by audio video 
electronic means could be treated at par with a statement which has 
been signed by its maker, inasmuch as it hampers his freedom to testify in 
the Court. But in any case use of audio or video devices to facilitate the 
recording of such statement cannot be said to have been prohibited by 
any interpretation of the provisions reproduced above when the finished 
product to be used in the Court to confront the witness is the statement 
reduced to writing and not its audio or video recording. Since the 
statement so transcripted or reduced to writing cannot enlarge its scope or 
its probative worth it could possibly have on its proof. The concerns voiced 
by the applicant being paranoiac appear to be more of form rather than 
substance. In the case of State of Rajasthan. Vs. Teja Ram and others  
((1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 507) the Supreme Court of India after 
examining a string of judgments went so far as to hold that even the 
signature of the witnesses on such statement cannot contaminate or vitiate 
its worth in the words as under :-  
“If any investigating officer ignorant of the said 
provision secured the signature of the person 
concerned in the statement, it does not mean that 
the witness’s testimony in the Court would, therefore, 
become contaminated or vitiated, the Court will only 
reassure the witness that he is not bound by such 
statement albeit his signature finding a place 
thereon.”  
 
7. 
 
In the age of computer where almost everything is 
communicated and even business of every type is transacted online, 
emphasis on the form of doing a thing as it used to be done in 1898 would 
amount to putting at naught the dynamics of scientific and technological 
advancements which have not only liberated man from exhausting labour 
but also made the things easier. Law in many countries of the East and the 
West has been changed and even re-enacted. Addition of the word ‘truly’ 
C.M.A. NO. 3986 OF 2017 IN CMA. NO. 2939 OF 2017 
5
 
in sub-Section 2 after the word ‘answer’ and insertion of the proviso to sub-
Section 3 of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of India, 
providing for recording of such statement by audio-video electronic means 
is an illuminating example on the subject. Alright, audio or video recording 
cannot be admitted into evidence for the proof of such statement till the 
law is amended, as it has been amended in India and the other countries, 
but its use to facilitate recording of such statement cannot be discouraged 
on the basis of so pedantic an interpretation of Sections 161 and 162 of the 
Cr.P.C.  The cases of P. Sirajuddin, etc. Vs. State of Madras, etc, Ch. Razik 
Ram. Vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan and others, Tahsildar Singh and 
another. Vs. State of U.P.  and Pakala Narayana Awami. Vs. Emperor  
(supra) being related to admissibility of the statement signed or recorded 
through audio-video electronic means do not appear to have any 
relevance at this stage.  
8. 
 
In view of what has been discussed above, we don’t feel 
persuaded to countenance the request thus made. The other prayer of the 
applicant cannot be attended to at this stage as the response of the 
learned Attorney General for Pakistan has not been received so far viz-a-viz 
the inquiry report as to the leakage of the image.  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
     JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Announced in Court at Islamabad on ________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
