Apex Law Associates and Consultants

14/02/2026

P L D 2019 Supreme Court 675
----Art. 164---Audio tape or video, proving of---Admissibility in evidence---Requirements for admissibility of an audio tape or video in evidence before a court of law and the mode and manner of proving the same before the court stated.

Following are the requirements for admissibility of an audio tape or video in evidence before a court of law and the mode and manner of proving the same before the court:

(i) No audio tape or video could be relied upon by a court until the same was proved to be genuine and not tampered with or doctored.

(ii) A forensic report prepared by an analyst of the Provincial Forensic Science Agency in respect of an audio tape or video was per se admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of section 9(3) of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007.

(iii) Under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 it laid in the discretion of a court to allow any evidence becoming available through an audio tape or video to be produced.

(iv) Even where a court allowed an audio tape or video to be produced in evidence, such audio tape or video had to be proved in accordance with the law of evidence.

(v) Accuracy of the recording must be proved and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be produced so as to rule out any possibility of tampering with the record.

(vi) An audio tape or video sought to be produced in evidence must be the actual record of the conversation as and when it was made or of the event as and when it took place.

(vii) The person recording the conversation or event had to be produced.

(viii) The person recording the conversation or event must produce the audio tape or video himself.

(ix) The audio tape or video must be played in the court.

(x) An audio tape or video produced before a court as evidence ought to be clearly audible or viewable.

(xi) The person recording the conversation or event must identify the voice of the person speaking or the person seen or the voice or person seen may be identified by any other person who recognized such voice or person.

(xii) Any other person present at the time of making of the conversation or taking place of the event may also testify in support of the conversation heard in the audio tape or the event shown in the video.

(xiii) The voices recorded or the persons shown must be properly identified.

(xiv) The evidence sought to be produced through an audio tape or video had to be relevant to the controversy and otherwise admissible.

(xv) Safe custody of the audio tape or video after its preparation till production before the court must be proved.

(xvi) The transcript of the audio tape or video must have been prepared under independent supervision and control.

(xvii) The person recording an audio tape or video may be a person whose part of routine duties was recording of an audio tape or video and he should not be a person who has recorded the audio tape or video for the purpose of laying a trap to procure evidence.

(xviii) The source of an audio tape or video becoming available had to be disclosed.

(xix) The date of acquiring the audio tape or video by the person producing it before the court ought to be disclosed by such person.

(xx) An audio tape or video produced at a late stage of a judicial proceeding may be looked at with suspicion.

(xxi) A formal application had to be filed before the court by the person desiring an audio tape or video to be brought on the record of the case as evidence.

14/02/2026

کسی بھی دستاویز کو ڈی ایگزیبٹ کروایا جا سکتا ھے
قانون شہادت(1984) (18)آرٹیکل
PLD 2023 islamabad124

10/02/2025

PLD 2024 SC 1152
2022 S C M R 1861

Ss. 249-A & 265-K---Acquittal under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.---Scope---In appellate or Revision al proceedings, the same sanctity cannot be accorded to acquittals at intermediary stages such as under section 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C., as available for those recorded and based on full-fledged trial after recording of evidence---In appeal or Revision proceedings, the order of acquittal of the accused under section 249-A or section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. would not have the same sanctity as orders of acquittal on merits---Consequently, the principles which are to be observed and applied in setting aside concurrent findings of acquittal or the principle relating to the presumption of double innocence when an accused is acquitted after a full-fledged inquiry and trial, would not be applicable to the acquittals under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. or section 265-K, Cr.P.C.

2005 S C M R 1544
---Ss. 249-A & 265-K---Appeal against acquittal---Appeal against acquittal of accused under S.249-A or S.265-K, Cr.P.C. and against his acquittal after trial---Principles---In appeal or Revision al proceedings, the order of acquittal of accused under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. would not have the same sanctity as orders of acquittal on merits---Consequently, the principles which are to be observed and applied in setting aside the concurrent findings of acquittal or the principle relating to the presumption of double innocence when an accused is acquitted after a full-fledged inquiry and trial, would not apply to acquittals under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.

P L D 1999 Supreme Court 1063
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) Ss. 249-A & 265-K---Acquittal of accused at any stage---Same sanctity cannot be accorded to acquittals at intermediary stages such as under S.249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. in appellate or Revision al proceedings as available for those recorded and based on full-fledged evidence.

10/02/2025

Bail citation for 324 337 F(vi) PPC

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 337 -F(vi) ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah---Bail , grant of---Further inquiry---As per prosecution version contained in the FIR, though the accused had been attributed two fire shots on non-vital part of the body of injured witness, however, dimension and locale of injuries portrayed that possibility could not be ruled out that injures were in continuation of each other---Perusal of record further revealed that the accused was discharged from hospital after one day, therefore, statement of injured witness that he had undergone surgical intervention during his hospital stay was not substantiated from the record---Injury ascribed to the accused had been declared falling under S. 337 -F(vi) , P.P.C. which entailed maximum punishment of seven years---Declaration of injury was made after a lapse of eight months, during the pendency of present petition before the Supreme Court---Accumulative effect of all such facts and circumstances created doubt regarding truthfulness of prosecution version---Regarding the question of applicability of S. 324, P.P.C., undeniably, the injuries were on non-vital part against a motive which was feeble in nature, hence, such question would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence during the course of trial---Case of the accused was one of "further inquiry" falling within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and the accused was granted Bail .

2020 SCMR 971

10/02/2025

10/02/2025

10/02/2025

PLJ 2020 Cr.C 1


----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471--Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, S. 5--Bail after arrest, grant of--Allegation of--Forged documents pertaining to land owned by complainant by using his forged name and shown himself as owner of land--Co-accused of the petitioner has already been bailed out by High Court--Possession is still with the complainant and entries have been corrected in the record--Offences alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause--Petitioner is behind the bars for the last 8 months and his trial is not in progress--Held: Speedy trial is right of an accused person--Petitioner s involvement in the commission of crime would be determined at trial stage--Petition is allowed.

12/09/2024