{ "schema_version": "qanun-law-text/1", "id": "punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab", "title": "QANUN-E-SHAHADAT ORDER, 1984", "source_collection": "Punjab", "content_kind": "stored_law_text", "content_extent": null, "source_url": "https://punjabcode.punjab.gov.pk/en/show_article/VGFQYwU2AjU-", "version": null, "source_snapshot": "2026-08-06T17:01:52Z", "legal_status": "not independently verified", "text_quality": "Complete stored UTF-8 TXT file recovered byte-for-byte from owned Drive. Source transcription retained verbatim; legal completeness, OCR accuracy and current consolidation unverified.", "text_sha256": "d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8", "source_sha256": "d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8", "text_version_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8", "quality_flags": [], "encoding": "UTF-8", "text": "QANUN-E-SHAHADAT ORDER, 1984 \r\n(X of 1984) \r\nCONTENTS \r\nPART – I \r\nRELEVANCY OF FACTS \r\nCHAPTER – I \r\nPRELIMINARY \r\n1. Short title, extent and commencement \r\n2. Interpretation \r\nCHAPTER II \r\nOF WITNESSES \r\n3. Who may testify. \r\n4. Judges and Magistrates. \r\n5. Communications during marriage \r\n6. Evidence as to affairs of State \r\n7. Official communications \r\n8. Information as to commission of offences \r\n9. Professional communications \r\n10. Article 9 to apply to interpreters, etc. \r\n11. Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence. \r\n12. Confidential communications with legal advisers. \r\n13. Production of title deed of witness, not party \r\n14. Production of documents which another person, having possession, \r\ncould refuse to produce. \r\n15. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will \r\ncriminate. \r\n16. Accomplice \r\n17. Competence and number of witnesses. \r\n \r\nCHAPTER III \r\nOf the Relevancy of Facts \r\n18. Evidence may be given of facts-in-issue and relevant facts. \r\n19. Relevancy of facts forming part, of same transaction. \r\n20. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue. \r\n21. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. \r\n22. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. \r\n23. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. \r\n24. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. \r\n25. In suits for damages facts tending to enable Court to determine amount \r\nare relevant. \r\n26. Facts relevant when right or custom is in question. \r\n27. Facts showing existence of state of mind or of body, or bodily feelings. \r\n28. Facts bearing on question Whether act was accidental or intentional. \r\n29. Existence of course of business when relevant. \r\nADMISSIONS \r\n30. Admission defined \r\n31. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent etc. \r\n32. Admission by persons whose position must be proved as against party \r\nto suit \r\n33. Admission by persons expressly referred to be party to suit \r\n34. Proof of admissions against person s making them and by or on their \r\nbehalf \r\n35. When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant \r\n36. Admissions in civil cases when relevant \r\n37. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in \r\ncriminal proceeding \r\n38. Confession to police officer not to be proved \r\n39. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved \r\nagainst him \r\n40. How much of information received from accused may be proved \r\n41. Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, \r\nthreat or promise, relevant. \r\n42. Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of \r\npromise of secrecy, etc. \r\n43. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and \r\nothers jointly under trial for same offence. \r\n44. Accused persons to be liable to cross-examination. \r\n45. Admission not conclusive proof but may estop. \r\nSTATEMENTS BY PERSONS WHO CANNOT BE CALLED AS \r\nWITNESSES \r\n46. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is deed or \r\ncannot be found, etc. is relevant, \r\n47. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in su bsequent proceeding, \r\nthe truth of facts therein stated \r\nSTATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES \r\n48. Entries in books of account when relevant \r\n49. Relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of duty \r\n50. Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans \r\n51. Relevancy of statements as to fact of public nature, contained in certain \r\nActs or notifications \r\n52. Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law-books \r\nHOW MUCH OF A STATEMENT IS TO BE PROVED \r\n53. What evidence to be given when statement forms part of a conversation, \r\ndocument, book or series of letters or papers \r\nJUDGMENTS 0F COURTS OF JUSTICE WHEN RELEVANT \r\n54. Previous judgments relevant to bar a Second suit or trial. \r\n55. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc. jurisdiction. \r\n56. Relevancy and effect of Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those \r\nmentioned in Article 55. \r\n57. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in Articles 54 to 56 when \r\nrelevant \r\n58. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetence of Court may \r\nbe proved \r\nOPINION OF THIRD PERSONS WHEN RELEVANT \r\n59. Opinions of experts. \r\n60. Facts bearing upon opinions of experts. \r\n61. Opinion as to handwriting when relevant. \r\n62. Opinion as to existence of right or custom, when relevant. \r\n63. Opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant. \r\n64. Opinion on relationship when relevant. \r\n65. Grounds of opinion when relevant. \r\nCHARACTER WHEN RELEVANT \r\n66. In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed irrelevant. \r\n67. In criminal cases previous good character relevant. \r\n68. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply. \r\n69. Character as affecting damages. \r\nCHAPTER IV \r\nOF ORAL EVIDENCE \r\n70. Proof of facts by oral evidence. \r\n71. Oral evidence must be direct. \r\nCHAPTER V \r\nOF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE \r\n72. Proof of contents of documents. \r\n73. Primary evidence. \r\n74. Secondary evidence. \r\n75. Proof of documents by primary evidence. \r\n76. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be \r\ngiven. \r\n77. Rules as to notice to produce. \r\n78. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or \r\nwritten document produced. \r\n79. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. \r\n80. Proof where no attesting witness found. \r\n81. Admission of execution by party to attested document. \r\n82. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution. \r\n83. Proof of document not required by law to be attested. \r\n84. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. \r\nPUBLIC DOCUMENTS \r\n85. Public documents. \r\n86. Private documents. \r\n87. Certified copies of public documents. \r\n88. Proof of documents by production of certified copies. \r\n89. Proof of other public documents. \r\nPRESUMPTION AS TO DOCUMENTS \r\n90. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. \r\n91. Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence. \r\n92. Presumption as to genuineness of documents kept under any law. \r\n93. Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government. \r\n94. Presumption as to collections of laws and reports of decision. \r\n95. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney. \r\n96. Presumption as to certified copies of foreign Judicial records. \r\n97. Presumption as to books, maps and charts \r\n98. Presumption as to telegraphic messages \r\n99. Presumption as to due execution etc., of documents not produced. \r\n100. Presumption as to documents thirty years old. \r\n101. Certified copies of documents thirty years old. \r\nCHAPTER VI \r\nOF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE \r\n102. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other disposition of proper ty \r\nreduced to form of document. \r\n103. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement \r\n104. Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts \r\n105. Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts \r\n106. Evidence as to application of language can apply to one only of several \r\npersons \r\n107. Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts to \r\nneither of which the whole correctly applies \r\n108. Evidence as to meaning of illegible characters, etc. \r\n109. Who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of document \r\n110. Saving of provisions of Succession Act relating to wills \r\nPART 11 \r\nON PROOF \r\nCHAPTER VII \r\nFACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED \r\n111. Fact judicially noticeable need not be proved. \r\n112. Facts of which Court must take judicial notice. \r\n113. Facts admitted need not be proved \r\nCHAPTER VIII \r\nESTOPPEL \r\n114. Estoppel \r\n115. Estoppel of tenant: and of licensee of person in possession \r\n116. Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\nPART III \r\nPRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE \r\nCHAPTER IX \r\nOF THE BURDEN OF PROOF \r\n117. Burden of proof. \r\n118. On whom burden of proof lies. \r\n119. Burden of proof as to particular fact. \r\n120. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible. \r\n121. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions. \r\n122. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. \r\n123. Burden of proving death o f person known to have been alive within \r\nthirty years. \r\n124. Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for \r\nseven years. \r\n125. Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord a nd \r\ntenant, principal and agent. \r\n126. Burden of proof as to ownership. \r\n127. Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of \r\nactive confidence. \r\n128. Birth during marriage conclusive proof of legitimacy \r\n129. Court may presume existence of certain facts. \r\nCHAPTER X \r\nOF THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESS \r\n130. Order of production and examination of witnesses. \r\n131. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence. \r\n132. Examination-in-chief, etc. \r\n133. Order of examinations. \r\n134. Cross-examination of person called to produce a document. \r\n135. Witnesses to character. \r\n136. Leading questions. \r\n137. When leading questions must not be asked. \r\n138. When leading questions may be asked. \r\n139. Evidence as to matters in writing. \r\n140. Cross-examination as to previous Statements in writing. \r\n141. Questions lawful in cross-examination. \r\n142. When witness to be compelled to answer. \r\n143. Court to decide when question shall be asked and when wi tness \r\ncompelled to.answer \r\n144. Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds \r\n145. Procedure of Court in case of question being asked without reasonable \r\ngrounds \r\n146. Indecent and scandalous question \r\n147. Procedure of Court in cases of defamation, libel and slander \r\n148. Questions intended to insult or annoy \r\n149. Exclusion of evidence to contract answer to questions testing veracity \r\n150. Question by party to his own witness \r\n151. Impeaching credit of witness \r\n152. Questions lending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact admissible \r\n153. Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later \r\ntestimony as to.same fact. \r\n154. When matters may be proved in connection with proved statement \r\nrelevant under.Article 46 or 47. \r\n155. Refreshing memory \r\n156. Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in Article 155 \r\n157. Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory \r\n158. Production of documents \r\n159. Giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on notice \r\n160. Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on \r\nnotice \r\n161. Judge’s power to put questions or order production \r\nCHAPTER XI \r\nOF IMPROPER ADMISSION AND REJECTION OF EVIDENCE \r\n162. No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence \r\nCHAPTER XII \r\nDECISION OF CASE ON THE BASIS OF OATH \r\n163. Acceptance or denial of claim on oath \r\nCHAPTER XIII \r\nMISCELLANEOUS \r\n164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern \r\ndevices, etc. \r\n165. Order to override other laws \r\n166. Repeal \r\n \r\nTEXT \r\nTHE QANUN-E-SHAHADAT, 1984 \r\nPRESIDENTS ORDER NO. 10 OF 1984 \r\n[28th October, 1984] \r\nPreamble.– WHEREAS it is expedient to revise, amend and consolidate the law of \r\nevidence so as to bring it in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in \r\nthe Holy Quran and Sunnah; \r\nNOW, THEREFORE , in pursuance of the Proclamation of the fifth day of July, \r\n1977, and in exercise of all powers enabling him in that behalf, the President is \r\npleased to make the following Order:– \r\nPART I \r\nRELEVANCY OF FACTS \r\nCHAPTER I \r\nPRELIMINARY \r\n1. Short title, extent and commencement .– (1) This order may be called the \r\nQanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. \r\n(2) It extends to the whole of Pakistan and applies to all judicial \r\nproceedings in or before any Court, including a court martial, a tribunal or other \r\nauthority exercising judicial or quasi judicial powers or Jurisdiction, but does not \r\napply to proceedings before an arbitrator. \r\n(3) It shall come into force at once. \r\n2. Interpretation.– (1) In this Order, unless there is anything repugnant in the \r\nsubject or context,– \r\n(a) “Court” includes a ll Judges and Magistrates, and all persons, except \r\narbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence; \r\n(b) “document” means any matter expressed or described upon any \r\nsubstance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one \r\nof those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the \r\npurpose recording that matter; \r\nIllustrations \r\nA writing is a document; \r\nWords printed, lithographed or photographed are documents; \r\nA map or plan is a document; \r\nAn inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document; \r\nA caricature is a document. \r\n(c) “evidence” includes:– \r\n(i) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made \r\nbefore it by witnesses , in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; \r\nsuch statements are called oral evidence; and \r\n(ii) all documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such \r\ndocuments are called documentary evidence; \r\n(d) “fact” includes– \r\n(i) anything, state of things, or relation of things capable of being \r\nperceived by the senses; and \r\n(ii) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) That there are certain o bjects arranged in a certain order in a certain \r\nplace, is a fact. \r\n(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact. \r\n(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. \r\n(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in \r\ngood faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was \r\nat a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. \r\n(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. \r\n(2) One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected \r\nwith the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Order relating to \r\nthe relevancy of facts. \r\n(3) The expression “facts in issue” includes any fact from which, either by \r\nitself or in connection with other facts the existence , non-existence, nature or extent \r\nof any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, \r\nnecessarily follows. \r\nExplanation.– Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force \r\nrelating to civil procedure, any Court records on issue of fact, the fact to be asserted \r\nor denied in the answer to such issue is a fact in issue. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA is accused of the murder of B. \r\nAt his trial the following facts may be in issue:– \r\nthat A caused B’s death; \r\nthat A had intended to cause B’s death; \r\nthat A had received grave sudden provocation from B; \r\nthat A, at the time of doing the act which caused B’s death, was by reason of \r\nunsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its nature. \r\n(4) A fact is said to be proved when, after co nsidering the matters before it, \r\nthe Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a \r\nprudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the \r\nsupposition that it exists. \r\n(5) A fact is said to be d isproved when after considering the matters before \r\nit, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non -existence so \r\nprobable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, \r\nto act upon the supposition that it does not exist. \r\n(6) A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. \r\n(7) Whenever it is provided by this Order that the Court may presume a \r\nfact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may \r\ncall for proof of it. \r\n(8) Whenever it is directed by this Order that the Court shall presume a \r\nfact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. \r\n(9) When one fact is declared by this Order to be conclusive proof of \r\nanother, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and \r\nshall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. \r\n1\r\n[(e) the expression, “automated”, “electronic”, “information”, “information \r\nsystem”, “electronic document”, “el ectronic signature”, “advanced electronic \r\nsignature” and “security procedure”, shall bear the meanings given in the Electronic \r\nTransaction Ordinance, 2002. \r\n(f) the expression “certificate” , where the context so admits, includes the \r\nmeaning given to it in the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002] \r\nCHAPTER II \r\nOF WITNESSES \r\n3. Who may testify .– All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court \r\nconsiders that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or \r\nfrom giving rational answ ers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, \r\ndisease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind: \r\nProvided that a person shall not be competent to testify if he has been \r\nconvicted by a Court for perjury or giving false evidence: \r\nProvided further that the provisions of the first proviso shall not apply to a \r\nperson about whom the Court is satisfied that he has repented thereafter and \r\nmended his ways: \r\nProvided further that the Court shall determine the competence of a witness in \r\naccordance with the qualifications prescribed by the injunctions of Islam as laid down \r\nin the Holy Quran and Sunnah for a witness, and , where such witness is not \r\nforthcoming, the Court may take the evidence of a witness who may be available. \r\nExplanation.– A lunatic is not incompetent to testify unless he is prevented by his \r\nlunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to \r\nthem. \r\n4. Judges and Magistrates .– No Judge or Magistrate shall, except upon the \r\nspecial order of some C ourt to which he is subordinate, be compelled to answer any \r\nquestions as to his own conduct in Court as Judge or Magistrate, or as to anything \r\n \r\n1Inserted by Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (LI of 2002), w .e.f. 11.9.2002, s.29 and Schedule, Item 1; published in \r\nthe Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), pages 1127-1175. \r\nwhich come to his knowledge in Court as such Judge or Magistrate; but he may be \r\nexamined as to other matters whic h occurred in his presence whilst he was so \r\nacting. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A, on his trial before the Court of Session, says that a deposition was \r\nimproperly taken by B, the Magistrate. B cannot be compelled to answer questions \r\nas to this, except upon the special order of a superior Court. \r\n(b) A is accused before the Court of Session of having given, false \r\nevidence before B, a Magistrate. B cannot be asked what A said , except upon the \r\nspecial order of the superior Court. \r\n(c) A is accused before the Court of S ession o f attempting to murder a \r\npolice-officer whilst on his trial before B, a Sessions Judge , B may be examined as \r\nto what occurred. \r\n5. Communications during marriage .– No person who is or has been married \r\nshall be compelled to disclose any communicatio n made to him during marriage by \r\nany person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to \r\ndisclosed any such communication , unless the person who made it s, or his \r\nrepresentative-in-interest, consents, except in suits between married perso ns, or \r\nproceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed \r\nagainst the other. \r\n6. Evidence as to affairs of State .– No one shall be permitted to give any \r\nevidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs o f State, \r\nexcept with the permission of the officer a s the head of the department concerned, \r\nwho shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit. \r\nExplanation.– In this Article, “official records relating to the affairs of state” includes \r\ndocuments c oncerning industrial or commercial activities carried on , directly or \r\nindirectly, by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or any statutory \r\nbody or corporation or company set up or controlled by such Government. \r\n7. Official communications.– No public officer shall be compelled to disclose \r\ncommunications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the \r\npublic interests would suffer by the disclosure. \r\nExplanation.– In this Article, “communications” includes communications concerning \r\nindustrial or commercial activities carried on, directly or indirectly, by the Federal \r\nGovernment or a Provincial Government or any statutory body or corporation or \r\ncompany set up or controlled by such Government. \r\n8. Information as to commission of offen ces.– No Magistrate or Police officer \r\nshall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of \r\nany offence, and no Revenue-officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any \r\ninformation as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue. \r\nExplanation.– In this Article, “Revenue -officer” means any officer employed in or \r\nabout the business of any branch of the public revenue. \r\n9. Professional communications.– No advocate shall at any time be permitted, \r\nunless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him \r\nin the course and for the purpose of his employment as such advocate, by or on \r\nbehalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which \r\nhe has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional \r\nemployment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for \r\nthe purpose of such employment: \r\nProvided that nothing in this Article shall protect from disclosure– \r\n(1) any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose; or \r\n(2) any fact observed by any advocate, in the course of his employment as \r\nsuch, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the \r\ncommencement of his employment, whether the attention o f such \r\nadvocate was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his \r\nclient. \r\nExplanation.– The obligation stated in this Article continues after the employment \r\nhas ceased. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A, a client, says to B , an advocate “I wish to obtain poss ession of \r\nproperty by the use of a forged deed on which I request you to sue.” \r\nThe communication, being made in furtherance of a criminal purpose , is not \r\nprotected from disclosure. \r\n(b) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an advocate, to \r\ndefend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entry has been \r\nmade in A’s account book charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, \r\nwhich entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment. \r\nThis being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment, showing that \r\na fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not \r\nprotected from disclosure. \r\n10. Article 9 to apply to interpreters, etc. – The provisions of Article 9 shall \r\napply to interpreters, and the clerks or servants of advocates. \r\n11. Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence .– If any party to a suit gives \r\nevidence therein at his own instance or otherwise, he shall not be deemed to have \r\nconsented thereby to such disclosure as is mentioned in Article 9, and, if any party to \r\na suit or proceeding calls any such advocate as a witness, he shall be deemed to \r\nhave consented to such disclosure only if he questions such advocate on matters \r\nwhich, but for such question, he would not be at liberty to disclose. \r\n12. Confidential communications with legal advisers .– No one shall be \r\ncompelled to disclose to the Court, tribunal or other authority exercising judicial or \r\nquasi-judicial powers or jurisdiction any confidential communication which has taken \r\nplace between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a \r\nwitness, in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications \r\nas may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence \r\nwhich he has given, but no others. \r\n13. Production of title deed of witness, not a party .– No witness who is not a \r\nparty to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title deeds to any property or any \r\ndocument in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortg agee or any \r\ndocument the production of which might tend to criminate him unless he has agreed \r\nin writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or \r\nsome person through whom he claims. \r\n14. Production of documents, which another person, having possession, \r\ncould refuse to produce .– No one shall be compelled to produce documents in his \r\npossession, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they \r\nwere in his possession, unless such last -mentioned person consents to their \r\nproduction. \r\n15. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will \r\ncriminate.– A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any \r\nmatter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal \r\nproceedings, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may \r\ntend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend \r\ndirectly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind: \r\nProvided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give , \r\nshall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any \r\ncriminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer. \r\n16. Accomplice.– An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an \r\naccused person, except in the case of an offence punishable with had; and a \r\nconviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated \r\ntestimony of an accomplice. \r\n17. Competence and numb er of witnesses .– (1) The competence of a person \r\nto testify, and the number of witnesses required in any case shall be determined in \r\naccordance with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. \r\n(2) Unless otherwise provided in any l aw relating to the enforcement of \r\nHudood or any other special law,– \r\n(a) in matters pertaining to financial or future obligations, if reduced to \r\nwriting, the instrument shall be attested by two men , or one man and \r\ntwo women, so that one may remind the othe r, if necessary, and \r\nevidence shall be led accordingly; and \r\n(b) in all other matters, the Court may accept, or act on , the testimony of \r\none man or one woman or such other evidence as the circumstances \r\nof the case may warrant. \r\nCHAPTER III \r\nOF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS \r\n18. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts .– Evidence \r\nmay be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non -existence of every \r\nfact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of \r\nno others. \r\nExplanation.– This Article shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact, \r\nwhich he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force \r\nrelating to Civil Procedure. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A is tried for the murder of B by be ating him with a club with the \r\nintention of causing his death. \r\nAt A’s trial the following facts are in issue– \r\nA’s beating B with the club; \r\nA’s causing B’s death by such beating; \r\nA’s intention to cause B’s death. \r\n(b) A suitor does not bring with him and have in readiness for production at \r\nthe first hearing of the case, a bond on which he relies. This Article does not enable \r\nhim to produce the bond or prove its contents at a subsequent stage of the \r\nproceedings, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the law \r\nfor the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure. \r\n19. Relevancy of facts forming part of some transaction .– Facts, which \r\nthough not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same \r\ntransaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at \r\ndifferent times and places. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or \r\ndone by A or B or the by -standers at the beating, or, so shortly before or after it as to \r\nform part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. \r\n(b) A is accused of waging war against Pakistan by taking part in an armed \r\ninsurrection in which property is destroyed , troops are attacked, and goals are \r\nbroken open. The occurre nce of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the \r\ngeneral transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them. \r\n(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a \r\ncorrespondence. Letters between the parties relating to the sub ject out of which the \r\nlibel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are \r\nrelevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself. \r\n(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered \r\nto A. The goods w ere delivered to several Intermediate persons successively. Each \r\ndelivery is a relevant fact. \r\n20. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue .– Facts \r\nwhich are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, o r \r\nfacts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or \r\nwhich afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The question is, whether A robbed B. \r\nThe facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with money in his \r\npossession, and that he showed it or mentioned the fact that he had it, to third \r\nperson, are relevant. \r\n(b) The question is, whether A murdered B. \r\nMarks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the pl ace where the \r\nmurder was committed, are relevant facts. \r\n(c) The question is, whether A poisoned B. \r\nThe state of B’s health before the symptoms ascribed to poison, and habits of \r\nB, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the administration of poison, are \r\nrelevant facts. \r\n21. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct .– (1) Any fact is \r\nrelevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or \r\nrelevant fact. \r\n(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any par ty, to any suit or \r\nproceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in \r\nissue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against \r\nwhom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct i nfluences or is \r\ninfluenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or \r\nsubsequent thereto. \r\nExplanation 1.– The word “conduct” in this clause does not include statements, \r\nunless those statements accompany and explain acts other tha n statements but this \r\nexplanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other Article of this \r\nOrder. \r\nExplanation 2.– When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to \r\nhim or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A is tried for the murder of B. \r\nThe facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C , and that B \r\nhad tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his knowledge public, are \r\nrelevant. \r\n(b) A sues B up on a bond for the payment of money , B denies the making \r\nof the bond. \r\nThe fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made, B required \r\nmoney for a particular purpose, is relevant. \r\n(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison the fact that, befor e the death of \r\nB, A procured poison similar to that, which was administered to B, is relevant. \r\n(d) The question is whether a certain document is the will of A. \r\nThe facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will A made inquiry into \r\nmatters to which the provisions of the alleged will relate, that he consulted advocates \r\nin reference to making the will, and that he caused drafts of other wills to be \r\nprepared of which he did not approve, are relevant. \r\n(e) A is accused of a crime. \r\nThe facts that eithe r before or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A \r\nprovided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance \r\nfavourable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence or prevented the \r\npresence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or \r\nsuborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant. \r\n(f) The question is whether A robbed B. \r\nThe facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A’s presence: \r\n“the Police are coming to look for the ma n who robbed B”, and that \r\nimmediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant. \r\n(g) The question is whether A owes B rupees 10,000. \r\nThe facts that A asked C to l end him money, and that D said to C in A’s \r\npresence and hearing: “I advise you not to trust A, for he owes B 10,000 rupees”, \r\nand that A went away without making any answer are relevant facts. \r\n(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime. \r\nThe fact that A absconded after receiving a letter warning him that inquiry was \r\nbeing made for the criminal, and the contents of the letter, are relevant. \r\n(i) A is accused of a crime. \r\nThe facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime , he absconded, or \r\nwas in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or \r\nattempted to conceal th ings which were or might have been used in committing it, \r\nare relevant. \r\n(j) The question is whether A was ravished. \r\nThe facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to \r\nthe crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was \r\nmade are relevant. \r\nThe fact that, without making a complaint, she said, that she had been \r\nravished is not relevant as conduct under this Article though it may be relevant as a \r\ndying declaration under Article 46, paragraph (1), or as corroborative evidence under \r\nArticle 153. \r\n(k) The question is, whether A was robbed. \r\nThe fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a complaint relating to \r\nthe offence, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint \r\nwas made, are relevant. \r\nThe fact that he said he had been robbed without making any complaint, is \r\nnot relevant, as conduct under this Article, though it may be relevant, as a dying \r\ndeclaration under Article 46, paragraph (1) , or as corroborative evidence under \r\nArticle 153. \r\n22. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts .– Facts necessary \r\nto explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an \r\ninference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity \r\nof anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any \r\nfact in issue, or relevant fact happened, or Which show the relation of parties by \r\nwhom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are neces sary for \r\nthat purpose. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A. \r\nThe state of A’s property and of his family at the date of the alleged wi ll may \r\nbe relevant facts. \r\n(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A; B affirms that the \r\nmatter alleged to be libellous is true. \r\nThe position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel was \r\npublished may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts in issue. \r\nThe particulars of a dispute between A and B ab out a matter unconnected \r\nwith the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a dispute may be \r\nrelevant if it affected the relations between A and B. \r\n(c) A is accused of a crime. \r\nThe fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A absconded from his \r\nhouse, is relevant under Article 21, as conduct subsequent to and affected by facts \r\nin issue. \r\nThe fact that at the time when he left home he had sudden and urgent \r\nbusiness at the place to which he went is relevant, as tending to explain th e fact that \r\nhe left home suddenly. \r\nThe details of the business on which he left are not relevant, except in so far \r\nas they are necessary to show that the business was sudden and urgent. \r\n(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made by hi m \r\nwith A. C, on leaving A’s service, says to A “I am leaving you because B has made \r\nme a better offer. \r\nThis statement is a relevant fact as explanatory of C’s conduct, which is \r\nrelevant as a fact in issue. \r\n(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stol en property to B, who is \r\nseen to give it to A’s wife. B , says as he delivers: “A says you are to hide this.” B’s \r\nstatement is relevant as explanatory of a fact which is part of the transaction. \r\n(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the head of a mob. \r\nThe cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the nature of the transaction. \r\n23. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design .– \r\nWhere there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have \r\nconspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong anything said, done \r\nor written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after \r\nthe time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant \r\nfact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the \r\npurpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing \r\nthat any such person was a party to it. \r\nIllustrations \r\nReasonable ground exists for believing that A has joi ned in a conspiracy to \r\nwage war against Pakistan. \r\nThe facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the conspiracy, C \r\ncollected money in Peshawar for a like object , D persuaded persons to join the \r\nconspiracy in Karachi. E published writings advoc ating the object in view at Multan , \r\nand F transmitted from Lahore to G at Kabul the money which C had collected at \r\nPeshawar and contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the conspiracy \r\nare each relevant, both to prove the existence of the cons piracy, and to prove A’s \r\ncomplicity in it, although he may have been ignorant of all of them, and although the \r\npersons by whom they were done were strangers to him and although they may \r\nhave been taken place before he Joined the conspiracy or after he left it. \r\n24. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant .– Facts not otherwise \r\nrelevant are relevant– \r\n(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; \r\n(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the \r\nexistence or non-existence of any f act in issue or relevant fact highly probable or \r\nimprobable. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The question i s, whether A committed a crime at Peshawar on a \r\ncertain day. \r\nThe fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. \r\nThe fact that, near the time when the crime was committed. A was at a \r\ndistance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly \r\nimprobable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant. \r\n(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime. \r\nThe circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either \r\nby A, B , C or D. Every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed \r\nby no one else and that it was not committed by either B, C or D, is relevant. \r\n25. In suits for damages fac ts tending to enable Court to determine amount \r\nare relevant.– In suits in which damages are claimed, any fact which will enable the \r\nCourt to determine the amount of damages which ought to be awarded, is relevant. \r\n26. Facts relevant when right or custom is in question.– Where the question \r\nis as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant:– \r\n(a) any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, \r\nclaimed, modified, recognized, asserted or denied, or which was \r\ninconsistent with its existence; \r\n(b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, \r\nrecognized or exercised, or in which its exercise was disputed, \r\nasserted or departed from. \r\nIllustrations \r\nThe question is whether A has a right to a fishery. A deed conferring the \r\nfishery on A’s ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by A’s father, a subsequent grant \r\nof the fishery by A’s father, irreconcilable with mortgage, particular instances in \r\nwhich A’s father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was stopped \r\nby A’s neighbours are relevant facts. \r\n27. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body, or bodily feeling .– \r\nFacts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, \r\ngood faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or \r\nshowing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the \r\nexistence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant. \r\nExplanation 1.– A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind \r\nmust show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the \r\nparticular matter in question. \r\nExplanation 2 .– But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the \r\nprevious commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of \r\nthis Article, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is \r\nproved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. \r\nThe fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen \r\narticles Is relevant, as tending to show that he know each and all of the articles of \r\nwhich he was in possession to be stolen. \r\n(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit \r\ncoin which, at the time when he delivered it, he knew to be counterfeit. \r\nThe fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other \r\npieces of counterfeit coin is relevant. \r\nThe fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person \r\nas genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant. \r\n(c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B’s which B knew to be \r\nferocious. \r\nThe facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z, and that they had \r\nmade complaints to B, are relevant. \r\n(d) The question is whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew \r\nthat the name of the payee was fictitious. \r\nThe fact that A had accepted other bil ls drawn in the same manner before \r\nthey could have been transmitted to him by the payee if the payee had been a real \r\nperson, is relevant as showing that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person. \r\n(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputat ion intend to harm \r\nthe reputation of B. \r\nThe fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill -will on the part \r\nof A towards B is relevant, as proving A’s intention to harm B’s reputation by the \r\nparticular publication in question. \r\nThe facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B, and that A \r\nrepeated the matter complained of as he heard it, are relevant, as showing that A did \r\nnot intend to harm the reputation of B. \r\n(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C, was solve nt \r\nwhereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent, suffered loss. \r\nThe fact that at the time when A represented C to be solvent, C was \r\nsupposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by person s dealing with him, is \r\nrelevant, as showing that A made the representation in good faith. \r\n(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house of which \r\nA is owner, by the order of C, a contractor. \r\nA’s defence is that B’s contract was with C. \r\nThe fact that A paid C for the work in question is relevant, as proving that A \r\ndid, in good faith, make over to C the management of the work in question, so that C \r\nwas in a position to contract with B on C’s own account, and not as agent for A. \r\n(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of properly which he \r\nhad found, and the question is whether, when he appropriated it, he be lieved in good \r\nfaith that the real owner could not be found. \r\nThe fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the \r\nplace where A was, is relevant, as showing tha t A did not in good faith believe that \r\nthe real owner of the property could not be found. \r\nThe fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice was given \r\nfraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a \r\nfalse claim to it, is relevant, as showing that the fact that A knew of the notice did not \r\ndisprove A’s good faith. \r\n(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to show \r\nA’s intent the fact of A’s having previously shot at B may be proved. \r\n(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Threatening letters \r\npreviously sent by A to B may be proved, as showing the intention of the letters. \r\n(k) The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his \r\nwife. Expressions of t heir feeling towards each other shortly before or after the \r\nalleged cruelty are relevant facts. \r\n(l) The question is whether A’s death was caused by poison. Statements \r\nmade by A during his illness as to his symptoms are relevant facts. \r\n(m) The question is , what was the state of A’s health at the time an \r\nassurance on his life was affected. \r\nStatements made by A as to the state of his health at or near the time in \r\nquestion are relevant facts. \r\n(n) A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for h ire not \r\nreasonably fit for use, where by A was injured. \r\nThe fact that B’s attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that \r\nparticular carriage is relevant. \r\nThe fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriages, which he let to \r\nhire, is irrelevant. \r\n(o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead \r\nThe fact that A on other occasions shot at B is relevant as showing his \r\nintention to shoot B. \r\nThe fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with Intent to murder \r\nthem is irrelevant. \r\n(p) A is tried for a crime. \r\nThe fact that he said something indicating an intention to commit that \r\nparticular crime is relevant. \r\nThe fact that he said something indicating a general disposition to commit \r\ncrimes of that class is irrelevant. \r\n28. Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional .– \r\nWhen there is a question whether \r\n2\r\nan act was accidental or intentional, or done with \r\na particular knowledge or intention, the fact that suc h act formed part of a series of \r\nsimilar occurrence, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is \r\nrelevant. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for \r\nwhich it is insured. \r\nThe facts that A lived in several houses successively each of whi ch he \r\ninsured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received \r\npayment from different insurance officers, are relevant, as tending to show that the \r\nfires were not accidental. \r\n(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors o f B. It is A’s duty to \r\nmake entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry \r\nshowing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive. \r\nThe question is whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. \r\nThe facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that \r\nthe false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant. \r\n(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit rupee. The \r\nquestion is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental. \r\nThe facts that , soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered \r\ncounterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant as showing that the delivery to B was \r\nnot accidental. \r\n29. Existence of course of business when relevant .– When there is a question \r\nwhether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, \r\naccording to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was despatched. \r\nThe facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a \r\ncertain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place \r\nare relevant. \r\n(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reach A. \r\nThe facts that it was po sted in due course, and was not returned through the \r\nDead Letter Office, are relevant. \r\nADMISSIONS \r\n \r\n2The w ord “an” is misprinted as “on”, in the original Gazette. \r\n30. Admission defined .– An admission is a statement, oral or documentary , \r\nwhich suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is \r\nmade by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned \r\n3\r\n[:] \r\n4\r\n[Explanation.– Statements generated by automated information systems may be \r\nattributed to the person exercising power or control over the said information system] \r\n31. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent, etc .– Statements made by \r\na party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, \r\nunder the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to \r\nmake them, are admissions. \r\n(2) Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative \r\ncharacter, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them \r\nheld that character. \r\n(3) Statements made by– \r\n(a) persons who have any proprietary or pec uniary interest in the subject \r\nmatter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their \r\ncharacter of persons so interested or \r\n(b) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in \r\nthe subject– matter of the suit, \r\nare admission s if they are made during the continuance of the interest \r\nof the persons making the statements. \r\n32. Admission by persons whose position must be proved as against party \r\nto suit.– Statements made by persons , whose position or liability it is necessary to \r\nprove as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be \r\nrelevant as against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit \r\nbrought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them \r\noccupies such position or is subject to such liability. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA undertakes to collect rents for B. \r\nB sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B. \r\nA denies that rent was due from C to B. \r\nA statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and is relevant fact as \r\nagainst A, if \r\nA denies that C did owe rent to B. \r\n33. Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit .– Statements \r\nmade by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in \r\nreference to matter in dispute are admissions. \r\nIllustrations \r\n \r\n3The full stop at the end is substituted w ith colcon, by Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (LI of 2002), w .e.f. 11.9.2002, \r\ns.29 and Schedule, Item 2; published in the Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), pages 1127-1175. \r\n4Inserted by Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (LI of 2002), w .e.f. 11.9.2002, s.29 and Schedule, Item 2; published in \r\nthe Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), pages 1127-1175. \r\nThe question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound. \r\nA says to B: “Go and ask C \r\nC knows all about it.” C’s statement is an admission. \r\n34. Proof of admissions against persons making th em, and by or on their \r\nbehalf.– Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who \r\nmakes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or o n \r\nbehalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in \r\nthe following cases:– \r\n(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, \r\nwhen it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it \r\nwould be relevant as between third persons under Article 46. \r\n(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the per son making it, \r\nwhen it consist of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or \r\nbody, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state \r\nof mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its \r\nfalsehood improbable. \r\n(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if \r\nit is relevant otherwise than as an admission. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or is not \r\nforged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged. \r\nA may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may prove a \r\nstatement by A that the deed is forged ; but A cannot prove a statement by himself \r\nthat the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a statement by himself that the deed is \r\nforged. \r\n(b) A, the captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away. \r\nEvidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course. \r\nA produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business showing \r\nobservations alleged to have been taken by hi m from day to day , and indicating that \r\nthe ship was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these statements, \r\nbecause they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead , under \r\nArticle 46 paragraph (2). \r\n(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Peshawar. \r\nHe produces a letter written by him self and dated at Lahore on that day, and \r\nbearing the Lahore post-marks of that day. \r\nThe statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because , if a were dead, \r\nit would be admissible under Article 46 paragraph (2). \r\n(d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods know ing them to be stolen. He \r\noffers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value. \r\nA may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are \r\nexplanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue. \r\n(e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit coin \r\nwhich he knows to be counterfeit. \r\nHe offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the coin as he \r\ndoubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that that person did examine it and \r\ntold him it was genuine. \r\nA may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last preceding \r\nIllustration. \r\n35. When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant .– Oral \r\nadmissions as to the conte nts of a document are not relevant , unless and until the \r\nparty proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence \r\nof the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless \r\nthe genuineness of a document produced is in question. \r\n36. Admissions in civil cases when relevant .– In civil cases no admission is \r\nrelevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be \r\ngiven, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed \r\ntogether that evidence of it should not be given. \r\nExplanation.– Nothing in this Article shall be taken to exempt any advocate from \r\ngiving evidence of any matter which he may be compelled to give evidence under \r\nArticle 9. \r\n37. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in \r\ncriminal proceeding.– A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a \r\ncriminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have \r\nbeen caused by any inducement, thre at or promise having reference to the charge \r\nagainst the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in \r\nthe opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to \r\nhim reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or \r\navoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. \r\n38. Confession to police officer not to be proved .– No confession made to a \r\npolice-officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. \r\n39. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved \r\nagainst him.– Subject to Article 4 0, no confession made by any person whilst he is \r\nin the custody of a police - officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a \r\nMagistrate, shall be proved as against such person. \r\nExplanation.– In this Article, “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village \r\ndischarging magisterial function unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the \r\npowers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898). \r\n40. How much of information received from accused may be proved .– When \r\nany fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a \r\nperson accused of any offence, in the custody of a police -officer, so much of such \r\ninformation, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact \r\nthereby discovered, may be proved. \r\n41. Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, \r\nthreat or promise, relevant .– If such a confession as is referred to in Article 37 is \r\nmade after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in \r\nthe opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant. \r\n42. Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of \r\npromise of secrecy, etc .– If such confession is otherwise relevant, it does not \r\nbecome irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in \r\nconsequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of \r\nobtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions \r\nwhen he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those \r\nquestions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such \r\nconfession, and that evidence of it might be given against him: \r\nProvided that the provisions of this Article shall not apply to the trial of cases \r\nunder the laws relating to the enforcement of Hudood. \r\n43. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and \r\nothers jointly under trial for same offence .– When more persons than one are \r\nbeing tried jointly for the same offence , and a confession made by one of such \r\npersons is proved,– \r\n(a) such confession shall be proof against the person; making it; and \r\n(b) the Court may take into consideration such confession as \r\ncircumstantial evidence against such other person. \r\nExplanation.– “Offence’”, as used in this Article, includes the abetment of , or \r\nattempt to commit, the offence. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A and B are jointly tried for the mu rder of C. It is proved that A said: “B \r\nand I murdered C”. The Court may consider the effect of this confession against B. \r\n(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C \r\nwas murdered by A and B , and that B said: “A and I murde red C”. This statement \r\nmay not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being jointly \r\ntried. \r\n44. Accused persons to be liable to cross examination.– All accused persons, \r\nincluding an accomplice, shall be liable to cross-examination. \r\n45. Admission not conclusive proof but may estop .– Admissions are not \r\nconclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as estoppels under \r\nthe provisions hereinafter contained. \r\nSTATEMENTS BY PERSONS WHO CANNOT BE CALLED AS \r\nWITNESSES \r\n46. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or \r\ncannot be found, etc., is relevant .– Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts \r\nmade by a person who is dead, or who cannot, be found, or who has become \r\nincapable of giving evidence, or w hose attendance can not be procured without an \r\namount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to \r\nthe Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:– \r\n(1) When it relates to cause of death .– When the statement is made by \r\na person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the \r\ncircumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases \r\nin which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such \r\nstatements are relevant whether the p erson who made them was or \r\nwas not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, \r\nand whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause \r\nof his death comes into question. \r\n(2) Or is made in course of business .– When the statement was made \r\nby such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular \r\nwhen it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books \r\nkept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of \r\nprofessional duty; or of an acknowledgment written or signed by him of \r\nthe receipt of money, goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a \r\ndocument used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of \r\na letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him. \r\n(3) Or against inte rest of maker .– When the statement is against the \r\npecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it, or when , if \r\ntrue, it would expose or would have exposed him to a criminal \r\nprosecution or to a suit for damages. \r\n(4) Or gives opinion as to public right or customs , or matters of \r\ngeneral interest .– When the statement gives the opinion of any such \r\nperson, as to the existence of any public right or custom or matter of \r\npublic or general interest, of the existence, of which it existed, he would \r\nhave been likely to be aware, and when such statement was made \r\nbefore any controversy as to such right, custom or matter has arisen. \r\n(5) Or relates to existence of relationship .– When the statement relates \r\nto the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption \r\nbetween persons as to whose relationship by blood , marriage or \r\nadoption the person making the statement had special means of \r\nknowledge, and when the statement was made before question in \r\ndispute was raised. \r\n(6) Or is made in will or deed relati ng to family affairs .– When the \r\nstatement relates to the existence of any relationship by blood, \r\nmarriage or adoption between persons deceased, and is made in any \r\nwill or deed relating to the affairs of the family to which any such \r\ndeceased person belonge d, o r in any family pedigree, or upon any \r\ntombstone, family portrait or other things on which such statements are \r\nusually made and when such statement was made before the question \r\nin dispute was raised. \r\n(7) Or in document relating to transaction mentioned in Article 26, \r\nparagraph (a).– When the statement is contained in any deed, will or \r\nother document which relates to any such transaction as is mentioned \r\nin Article 26, paragraph (a). \r\n(8) Or is made by several persons and expresses feelings relevant to \r\nmatter in question .– When the statement was made by a number of \r\npersons, and expressed feelings or impressions on their part relevant \r\nto the matter in question. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The question is, whether A was murdered by B ; or A dies of Injuries \r\nreceived in a transaction in the course of which she was ravished. The question is, \r\nwhether she was ravished by B; or \r\nThe question is, whether A was killed by B under such circumstances that a \r\nsuit would lie against B by A’s widow. \r\nStatements made by A as to the ca use of his or her death, referring \r\nrespectively to the murder, the rape and the actionable wrong under consideration \r\nare relevant facts. \r\n(b) The question is as to the date of A’s birth. \r\nAn entry in the diary of a deceased surgeon regularly kept in the cou rse of \r\nbusiness, stating that, on a given day, he attended A’s mother and delivered her of a \r\nson, is a relevant fact. \r\n(c) The question is, whether A was in Peshawar on a given day. \r\nA statement in the diary of a deceased solicitor, regularly kept in the co urse of \r\nbusiness, that on a given day the solicitor attended A at a place mentioned, in \r\nPeshawar, for the purpose of conferring with him upon specified business, is a \r\nrelevant fact. \r\n(d) The question is, whether a ship sailed from Karachi harbour on a give n \r\nday. A letter written by a deceased member of a merchant’s firm by which she was \r\nchartered to their correspondents in London, to whom the cargo was consigned, \r\nstating that the ship sailed on a given day from Karachi harbour is a relevant fact. \r\n(e) The question is, whether rent was paid to A for certain land. \r\nA letter from A’s deceased agent to A saying that he had received the rent on \r\nA’s account and held it at A’s order, is a relevant fact. \r\n(f) The question is, whether A end B were legally married . The statement \r\nof a deceased clergyman that he married them under such circumstances, that the \r\ncelebration would be a crime is relevant. \r\n(g) The question is , whether A, a person who cannot be found, wrote a \r\nletter on a certain day. The fact that a letter writ ten by him is dated on that day is \r\nrelevant. \r\n(h) The question is, what was the cause of the wreck of a ship. A protest \r\nmade by the Captain, whose attendance cannot be procured, is a relevant fact. \r\n(i) The question is, whether a given road is a public way. \r\nA statement by A, a deceased headman of the village, that the road was \r\npublic, is a relevant fact. \r\n(j) The question is, what was the price of grain on a certain day in a \r\nparticular market. A statement of the price, made by a deceased banya in the \r\nordinary course of his business, is a relevant fact. \r\n(k) The question is, whether A, who is dead, was the father of B. \r\nA statement by A that B was his son is a relevant fact. \r\n(l) The question is, what was the date of the birth of A. \r\nA letter from A’s deceased father to a friend, announcing the birth of A on a \r\ngiven day, is a relevant fact. \r\n(m) The question is, whether and when, A and B were married. \r\nAn entry in a memorandum -book by C, the deceased father of B, of his \r\ndaughter’s marriage with A on a given date, is a relevant fact. \r\n(n) A sues B for a libel expressed in a painted caricature expose d in a \r\nshop window. \r\nThe question is as to the similarity of the caricature and its libellous character. \r\nThe remarks on a crowd of spectators on these points may be proved. \r\n5\r\n[46-A Relevance of information generated, received or recorded by automated \r\ninformation system. – Statements in the form of electronic documents generated, \r\nreceived or recorded by an automated information system while it is in working order, \r\nare relevant facts.] \r\n47. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, \r\nthe truth of facts therein stated .– Evidence given by a witness in a judicial \r\nproceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the \r\npurpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding , or in a later stage of the \r\nsame judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is \r\ndead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way \r\nby the ad verse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of \r\ndelay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers \r\nunreasonable: \r\nProvided that– \r\nthe proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives -in-\r\nInterest; \r\nthe adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to \r\ncross-examine; \r\nthe questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second \r\nproceeding. \r\nExplanation.– A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding \r\nbetween the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this Article. \r\nSTATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES \r\n \r\n5Inserted by Electronic Transactions Ordinance , 2002 (LI of 2002), w .e.f. 11.9.2002, s.29 and Schedule, Item 3; published in \r\nthe Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), pages 1127-1175. \r\n48. Entries in books of account when relevant .– Entries in books of account , \r\nregularly kept in the course of business , are relevant whenever they refer to a matter \r\ninto which the Court has to enquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient \r\nevidence to charge any person with liability. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA sues B for Rs. 1,000, and shows entries in his account books showin g B to be \r\nindebted to him to this amount . The entries are relevant, but are not sufficient , \r\nwithout other evidence, to prove the debt. \r\n49. Relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of duty .– An \r\nentry in any public or other official book, reg ister or record, stating a fact in issue or \r\nrelevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by \r\nany other person in performance of a duty specialty enjoined by the law of the \r\ncountry in which such book, register or record is kept, is itself a relevant fact. \r\n50. Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans .– Statements of facts \r\nin issue or relevant facts made in published maps or charts generally offered for \r\npublic sale, or in maps or plans made under the authority of the Federal Government \r\nor any Provincial Government, as to matters usually represented or stated in such \r\nmaps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts. \r\n51. Relevancy of statements as to fact of public nature, contained in certain \r\nActs or notific ations.– When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence \r\nof any fact of a public nature, any statement of it, made in a recital contained in any \r\nAct of the Central Legislature or of any other legislative authority in Pakistan or in a \r\nGovernment notification appearing in the official Gazette is a relevant fact. \r\n52. Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law -books.– When \r\nthe Court has to form an opinion as to a law of any country , any statement of such \r\nlaw contained in a book purporting to be printed or published under the authority, of \r\nthe Government of such country and to contain any such law, and any report of a \r\nruling of the Courts of such country contained in a book purporting to be a report of \r\nsuch rulings, is relevant. \r\nHOW MUCH OF A STATEMENT IS TO BE PROVED \r\n53. What evidence to be given when statement forms part of a conversation, \r\ndocument, book or series of letters or papers .– When any statement of which \r\nevidence is given forms part of a longer statement, or of a conversation or part of an \r\nisolated document, or is contained in a document which forms part of a book or of a \r\nconnected series of letters or papers, evidence shall be given of so much and no \r\nmore of the statement, conversation, document, book or series of letters or pap ers \r\nas the Court considers necessary in that particular case to the full understanding of \r\nthe nature and effect of the statement, and of the circumstances under which it was \r\nmade. \r\nJUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE WHEN RELEVANT \r\n54. Previous Judgments relevan t to bar a second suit or trial .– The existence \r\nof any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Court from taking \r\ncognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether \r\nsuch Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial. \r\n55. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate etc., jurisdiction .– A final \r\njudgment, order o n decree of a competent Court in the exercise of probate \r\nmatrimonial admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or take s away \r\nfrom any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to \r\nany such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any \r\nspecified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal \r\ncharacter, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. \r\nSuch judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof– \r\nthat any legal character which it confers accused, at the time when such \r\njudgment, order or decree came into operation; \r\nthat any l egal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, \r\naccrued to that parson at the time when such Judgment, order or decree declares it \r\nto have accrued to that person; \r\nthat any legal character which it takes away from any such person cease d at \r\nthe time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or \r\nshould cease; and \r\nthat anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the \r\nproperty of that person at the t ime from which such judgment, order or decree \r\ndeclares that it had been or should be his property. \r\n56. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those \r\nmentioned in Article 55 .– Judgments, orders or decrees other than those \r\nmentioned in Article 55 are relevant if they relate to m atters of a public nature \r\nrelevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive \r\nproof of that which they state. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA sues B for tr espass or his land, B alleges th e existence of a public right of \r\nway over the land, which A denies. \r\nThe existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C \r\nfor a trespass on the same land , in which C alleged the existence of the same right \r\nof way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists. \r\n57. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in Articles 54 to 56, when \r\nrelevant .– Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Articles 54, \r\n55 and 56 are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment , order or decree is a \r\nfact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Order. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them, \r\nC in each case says that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the \r\ncircumstances are such t hat it is probably true in each case, or in neither. A obtains \r\na decree against C for damages o n the ground that C failed to make out his \r\njustification. The fact is irrelevant as between B and C. \r\n(b) A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A’s wife. B denies that C is A’s wife \r\nbut the Court convict B of adultery. \r\nAfterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A’s lifetime. C \r\nsays that she never was A’s wife. The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C. \r\n(c) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him, B is convicted . A \r\nafterwards sues C for the cow , which B had sold to him before his conviction. As \r\nbetween A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant. \r\n(d) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B. C, B’s \r\nson, murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as \r\nshowing motive for a crime. \r\n(e) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of \r\ntheft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue. \r\n(f) A is tried for the murder o f B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and \r\nthat A was convicted and sentenced is relevant and under Article 21 as showing the \r\nmotive for the fact in issue. \r\n58. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or Incompetency of C ourt, \r\nmay be proved .– Any pa rty to a suit or other proceeding may show that any \r\njudgment, order or decree which is relevant under Articles 54, 55 or 56, and which \r\nhas bean proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to \r\ndeliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion. \r\nOPINION OF THIRD PERSONS WHEN RELEVANT \r\n59. Opinions of experts .– When the Court has to form an opinion upon a poin t \r\nof foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of hand -writing or finger \r\nimpressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign \r\nlaw, science or art, or in questions as to identity of hand -writing or finger impressions \r\n6\r\n[, or as to authenticity and integrity of electronic documents by or through an \r\ninformation system] \r\n7\r\n[or as to the function ing, specifications, programming and \r\noperations of information systems, are relevant facts.] \r\nSuch persons are called experts. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison . The \r\nopinion of experts as to the symptoms produce d by the poisoned by which A is \r\nsupposed to have died, are relevant. \r\n(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was by \r\nreason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the a ct, or that \r\nhe was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. \r\nThe opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by \r\nA commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind \r\nusually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, \r\nor of knowing that what they do either wrong or contrary to law are relevant. \r\n \r\n6Inserted by Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (LI of 2002), w .e.f. 11.9.2002, s.29 and Schedule, Item 4; published in \r\nthe Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), pages 1127-1175. \r\n7Substituted ibid, for the w ords “are relevant facts” \r\n(c) The question is , whether a certain document was written by A. Another \r\ndocument is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. \r\nThe opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were \r\nwritten by the same person or by different persons, are relevant. \r\n60. Facts bearing upon opinions of experts .– Facts, not otherwise relevant, \r\nare relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinion s of experts, when \r\nsuch opinion are relevant. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison . The fact \r\nthat other persons, who were poisoned by that poison, exhibited certain symptoms \r\nwhich experts affirm or deny to be the symptoms that poison, is relevant. \r\n(b) The question is, whether an obstruction to a harbour is caused by a \r\ncertain sea-wall. The fact that other harbours similarly situated in other respects, but \r\nwhere there were no such sea-walls, began to be obstructed a t about the same time, \r\nis relevant. \r\n61. Opinion as to hand -writing when relevant .– When the Court has to form an \r\nopinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion \r\nof any parson acquainted with the hand-writing of the person by whom it is supposed \r\nto be written or signed that it was or it was not written or signed by that person, is \r\nrelevant fact. \r\nExplanation.– A person is said to be acquainted with the hand -writing of another \r\nperson when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents \r\npurporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or \r\nunder his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of \r\nbusiness, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually \r\nsubmitted to him. \r\nIllustrations \r\nThe question is , whether a given letter is in the hand -writing of A, a merchant \r\nin London. B is a merchant in Peshawar, who has written letters addressed to A and \r\nreceived letters purporting to be writ ten by him, C is B’s clerk, whose duty it was to \r\nexamine and file B’s correspondence. D is B’s broker, to whom B habitually \r\nsubmitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising him \r\nthereon. The opinion of B, C and D on the questi on whether the letter is in the hand-\r\nwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C or D ever saw A write. \r\n62. Opinion as to existence of right or custom, when relevant .– When the \r\nCourt has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right, the \r\nopinion, as to the existence of such custom or right, of persons who would be likely \r\nto know of its existence if it existed, are relevant. \r\nExplanation.– the expression “general custom or right” includes customs or rights \r\ncommon to any considerable class of persons. \r\nIllustration \r\nThe right of the villagers of a particular village to use the water of a particular \r\nwell is a general right within the meaning of this Article. \r\n63. Opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant .– When the Court has to \r\nform an opinion as to –the usages and tenets of any body of men or family, the \r\nconstitution and government of any religious or charitable foundation, or the meaning \r\nof words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people, the \r\nopinions of persons having special means of knowledge thereon, are relevant facts. \r\n64. Opinion on relationship when relevant .– When the Court has to form an \r\nopinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by \r\nconduct, as to th e existence .of such relationship, of any person who, as a member \r\nof the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a \r\nrelevant fact: \r\nProvided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in \r\nproceedings under th e Divorce Act 1869 (IV of 1869), or in prosecutions under \r\nSection 494 or 495 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The question is whether A and B were married. The fact they were \r\nusually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, it relevant. \r\n(b) The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B. The fact that A \r\nwas always treated as such by members of the family, is relevant. \r\n65. Grounds of opinion when relevant .– Whenever the opinion of any living \r\nperson is relevant, the grounds on which such opinion is based are also relevant. \r\nIllustration \r\nAn expert may give an account of experiments performed by him for the \r\npurpose of forming his opinion. \r\nCHARACTER WHEN RELEVANT \r\n66. In civil cases character to prove co nduct imputed irrelevant .– In civil \r\ncases the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render \r\nprobable or improbable any conduct imputed to him is irrelevant, except in so far as \r\nsuch character appears from facts otherwise relevant. \r\n67. In criminal cases previous good character relevant .– In criminal \r\nproceedings the fact that the person accused is of a good character is relevant. \r\n68. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply .– In criminal \r\nproceedings the fact that the accus ed person has a bad character is irrelevant, \r\nunless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it \r\nbecome relevant. \r\nExplanation 1.– This Article does not apply to cases in which the bad character of \r\nany person is itself a fact in issue. \r\nExplanation 2.– A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character. \r\n69. Character as affecting damages .– In civil cases the fact that the character \r\nof any person is such as to affect the amount of damages, which he ought to receive, \r\nis relevant. \r\nExplanation.– In Articles 66, 67, 68 and 69, the word “character” includes both \r\nreputation and disposition; but , except as provided in Article 68, evidence may be \r\ngiven only of general reputation and general disposition, and not of particular acts by \r\nwhich reputation or disposition were shown. \r\nCHAPTER IV \r\nOF ORAL EVIDENCE \r\n70. Proof of facts by oral evidence .– All facts, except the contents of \r\ndocuments, may be proved by oral evidence. \r\n71. Oral evidence must be direct .– Oral evidence must, in all ca ses whatever \r\nbe direct, that is to say– \r\nIf it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness \r\nwho says he saw it; \r\nIf it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness \r\nwho says he heard it; \r\n If it re fers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any \r\nother manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that \r\nsense or in that manner; \r\n If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must \r\nbe the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds: \r\nProvided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treaties commonly \r\noffered for sale and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by \r\nthe production of suc h treaties if the author is dead, or cannot be found, or has \r\nbecome incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an \r\namount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable: \r\nProvided further that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of \r\nany material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the \r\nproduction of such material thing for its inspection: \r\nProvided further that, if a witness is dead, or can not be found or has become \r\nincapable of giving evidence, or his attendance cannot , be procured without an \r\namount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case the Court \r\nregards as unreasonable, a party shall have the right to produce “shahada ala al -\r\nshahadah” by which a witness can appoint two witnesses to depose on his behalf, \r\nexcept in the case of Hudood. \r\nCHAPTER V \r\nOF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE \r\n72. Proof of contents of documents .– The contents of documents may be \r\nproved either by primary or by secondary evidence. \r\n73. Primary evidence .– “Primary evidence” means the document itself produced \r\nfor the inspection of the Court. \r\nExplanation 1 .– Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is \r\nprimary evidence of the document. \r\nWhere a document is executed in counterpar t, each counterpart being \r\nexecuted by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence \r\nas against the parties executing it. \r\nExplanation 2 .– Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform \r\nprocess, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary \r\nevidence of the contents of the rest; but , where they are all copies of a common \r\noriginal, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original. \r\nIllustration \r\nA person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all \r\nprinted at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of \r\nthe contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of \r\nthe original. \r\n8\r\n[Explanation 3 .– A print out or other form of out put of an automated information \r\nsystem shall not be denied the status of primary evidence solely for the reason that it \r\nwas generated, sent, received or stored in electronic form if the automated \r\ninformation system was in working order at all materi al times and, for the purposes \r\nhereof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it shall be presumed that the \r\nautomated information system was in working order at all material times. \r\nExplanation 4.– A print out or other form of reproduction of an electro nic document, \r\nother than a document mentioned in Explanation 3 above, first generated, sent, \r\nreceived or stored in electronic form, shall be treated as primary evidence where a \r\nsecurity procedure was applied thereto at the time it was generated, sent, rece ived \r\nor stored.] \r\n74. Secondary evidence.– “Secondary evidence means and includes– \r\n(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained; \r\n(2) copies made from the original by mechanical process which is \r\nthemselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with \r\nsuch copies; \r\n(3) copies made from or compared with the original; \r\n(4) counterparts of documents as against the p arties who did not execute \r\nthem; \r\n(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who \r\nhas himself seen it. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents \r\nthough the two have not been compared if it is proved that the thing \r\nphotographed was the original. \r\n(b) A copy, compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is \r\nsecondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the \r\ncopy made by the copying machine was made from the original. \r\n \r\n8Inserted by Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (LI of 2002), w .e.f. 11.9.2002, s.29 and Schedule, Item 5; published in \r\nthe Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), pages 1127-1175. \r\n(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the \r\noriginal, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not \r\nsecondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was \r\ntranscribed was compared with the original. \r\n(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an \r\noral account of a ph otograph or machine -copy of the original, is \r\nsecondary evidence of the original. \r\n75. Proof of documents by primary evidence .– Documents must be proved by \r\nprimary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. \r\n76. Cases in which secondary evidence re lating to documents may be \r\ngiven.– Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of \r\na document in the following cases:– \r\n(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power \r\nof the person against whom the do cument is sought to be proved, or of \r\nany person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, \r\nor of any person legally bound to produce it, and when , after the notice \r\nmentioned in Article 77 such person does not produce it; \r\n(b) when the ex istence, condition or contents of the original have been \r\nproved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is \r\nproved or by his representative in interest; \r\n(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering \r\nevidence o f its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from \r\nhis own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; \r\n(d) when, due to the volume or bulk of the original, copies thereof have \r\nbeen made by means of microfilming or other modern devices; \r\n(e) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; \r\n(f) when the original is public document within the meaning of Article 85; \r\n(g) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted \r\nby this Order, or by any other law in force in Pakistan, to be given in \r\nevidence; \r\n(h) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents \r\nwhich cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be \r\nproved is the general result of the whole collection; \r\n(i) when an or iginal document forming part of a judicial record is not \r\navailable and only a certified copy thereof is available, certified copy of \r\nthat certified copy shall also be admissible as a secondary evidence. \r\nIn cases (a), (c), (d) and (e), any secondary evidenc e of the contents of \r\nthe document is admissible. \r\nIn case (b), the written admission is admissible. \r\nIn case (f) or (g), certified copy of the document, but no other kind of \r\nsecondary evidence, is admissible. \r\nIn case (h), evidence may be given as to the gene ral result of the \r\ndocuments by any person who has examined them , and who is skilled \r\nin the examination of such document. \r\n77. Rules as to notice to produce .– Secondary evidence of the contents of the \r\ndocuments referred to in Article 76, paragraph (a), shal l not be given unless the party \r\nproposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in \r\nwhose possession or power the document is, or to his advocate, such notice to \r\nproduce it as is prescribed by Law ; and, if no notice is prescribed by law, then such \r\nnotice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case: \r\nProvided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary \r\nevidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the \r\nCourt thinks fit to dispense with it:– \r\n(1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice; \r\n(2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he \r\nwill be required to produce it; \r\n(3) when it appears or is proved that the advers e party has obtained \r\npossession of the original by fraud or force; \r\n(4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court; \r\n(5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the \r\ndocument ; \r\n(6) when the person in possession of th e document is out of reach of, or \r\nnot subject to, the process of the Court. \r\n78. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or \r\nwritten document produced .– If a document is alleged to be signed or to have \r\nbeen written wholly or in p art by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so \r\nmuch of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be \r\nproved to be in his handwriting. \r\n9\r\n[78–A. Proof of electronic signature and electronic document. – If an \r\nelectronic document alleged to be signed or to have been generated holly or in part \r\nby any person through the use of an information system, and where such allegation \r\nis denied, the application of a security procedure to the signature or the electronic \r\ndocument must be proved.] \r\n79. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested .– If a \r\ndocument is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until two \r\nattesting witnesses of least have been called for the purpose of proving its execution, \r\nif there be two attesting witnesses alive, and subject to the process of the Court and \r\ncapable of given evidence: \r\nProvided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of \r\nthe execution of any document, not being a will, which has bee n registered in \r\naccordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), unless its \r\n \r\n9Inserted by Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (LI of 2002), w .e.f. 11.9.2002, s.29 and Schedule, Item 6; published in \r\nthe Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), pages 1127-1175. \r\nexecution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically \r\ndenied. \r\n80. Proof where no attesting witness found .– If no such attesting witness can \r\nbe found, it must be proved that the witnesses have either died , or cannot be found \r\nand that the document was executed by the person who purports to have done so. \r\n81. Admission of execution by party to attested document .– The admission of \r\na party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of \r\nits execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested. \r\n82. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution .– If the attesting \r\nwitness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution \r\nmay be proved by other evidence. \r\n83. Proof of document not required by law to be attested .– An attested \r\ndocument not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested. \r\n84. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or \r\nproved.– (1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the \r\nperson by whom it purports to have been written or made any signature , writing or \r\nseal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made \r\nby that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that \r\nsignature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. \r\n(2) The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or \r\nfigures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so \r\nwritten with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. \r\n(3) This Article applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger -\r\nimpressions. \r\n85. Public documents.– The following documents are public documents:– \r\n(1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts– \r\n(i) of the sovereign authority ; \r\n(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and \r\n(iii) of public officers, legislative, Judicial and executive , of any part \r\nof Pakistan, or of a foreign country; \r\n(2) public records kept in Pakistan of private documents; \r\n(3) documents forming part of the records of judicial proceedings; \r\n(4) documents required to be maintained by a public servant under any \r\nlaw; and \r\n(5) registered documents the execution whereof is not disputed. \r\n10\r\n[(6) certificates deposited in a repository pursuant to the provisions of the \r\nElectronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002.] \r\n \r\n10Inserted by Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 (LI of 2002), w .e.f. 11.9.2002, s.29 and Schedule, Item 7; published in \r\nthe Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), pages 1127-1175. \r\n86. Private documents.– All other documents are private. \r\n87. Certified copies of public documents .– Every public officer having the \r\ncustody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that \r\nperson on demand a copy of it on payme nt of the legal fees therefore, together with \r\na certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or \r\npart thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed \r\nby such officer with his name and h is official title, and shall be sealed, whenever \r\nsuch officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified \r\nshall be called certified copies. \r\nExplanation.– Any officer, who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized \r\nto deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents \r\nwithin the meaning of this Article. \r\n88. Proof of documents by production of certified Copies .– Such certified \r\ncopies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public docum ents or parts of \r\nthe public documents of which they purport to be copies. \r\n89. Proof of other public documents .– The following public documents may be \r\nproved as follows:– \r\n(1) Acts, orders or notifications of the Federal Government in any of its \r\ndepartments, or of any Provincial Government or any department of \r\nany Provincial Government – by the records of the departments, \r\ncertified by the heads of those departments respectively, or by any \r\ndocument purporting to be printed by order of any such Government; \r\n(2) the proceedings of the Legislatures, –by the journal of those bodies \r\nrespectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, by copies purporting to \r\nbe printed by order of the Government concerned; \r\n(3) the Acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the Legisl ature of a \r\nforeign country,–by journals published by their authority, or commonly \r\nreceived in that country as such or by a copy certified under the seal of \r\nthe country or sovereign , or by a recognition thereof in some Federal \r\nAct; \r\n(4) the proceedings of a municipal body in Pakistan, –by a copy of such \r\nproceedings, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book \r\npurporting to be published by the authority of such body; \r\n(5) public documents of any other class in a foreign country, –by the \r\noriginal, or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a \r\ncertificate under the seal of a notary public, or of a Pakistan Consul or \r\ndiplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the \r\nlegal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the \r\ndocument according to the law of foreign country. \r\nPRESUMPTIONS AS TO DOCUMENTS \r\n90. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies .– (1) The Court shall \r\npresume every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or ot her \r\ndocument, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular \r\nfact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Federal Government \r\nor a Provincial Government to be genuine: \r\nProvided that such document is substantial ly in the form and purports to be \r\nexecuted in the manner directed by law in that behalf. \r\n(2) The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such \r\ndocument purports to be signed or certified, held , when he signed it, the official \r\ncharacter which he claims in such document. \r\n91. Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence .– \r\nWhenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or \r\nmemorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a wi tness in a \r\njudicial proceeding o r before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence or \r\nto be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in \r\naccordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate or by \r\nany such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume– \r\nthat the document is genuine; that any statements as to the circumstances \r\nunder which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it , are true, \r\nand that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken. \r\n92. Presumption as to genuineness of documents kept under any law .– The \r\nCourt shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be a \r\ndocument directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept \r\nsubstantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody. \r\n93. Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government .– \r\nThe Court shall presume that map or plans purporting to be made by the authority of \r\nthe Federal Government or any Provincia l Government were so made, and are \r\naccurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to \r\nbe accurate. \r\n94. Presumption as to collections of laws and reports of decision .– The \r\nCourt shall presume the genuineness of every book purp orting to be printed or \r\npublished under the authority of the Government of any country, and to contain any \r\nof the law of that country, and of every book purporting to contain reports of \r\ndecisions of the Courts of such country. \r\n95. Presumption as to powers -of-attorney.– The Court shall presume that \r\nevery document purporting to be a power -of-attorney, and to have been executed \r\nbefore, and authenticated by, a notary public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, \r\nPakistan \r\n11\r\nConsul or Vice -Consul, or representative of the Federal Government, was \r\nso executed and authenticated. \r\n96. Presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records .– (1) The \r\nCourt may presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy of any \r\njudicial record of any country not forming part of Pakistan is genuine and accurate, if \r\nthe document purports to be certified in any manner which is certified by any \r\n \r\n11The w ord misprinted in the Gazette as “Cousul” is corrected \r\nrepresentative of the Federal Government in or for such country to be the manner \r\ncommonly in use in that country for the certification of copies of judicial records. \r\n(2) An officer who, with respect to any territory or place not forming part of \r\nPakistan, is a political Agent therefore, as defined in section 3, clause (40), of the \r\nGeneral Clauses Act, 1897(X of 1897) , shall for the pu rposes of clause (1), be \r\ndeemed to be a representative of the Federal Government in or for the country \r\ncomprising that territory or place. \r\n97. Presumption as to books, maps and charts .– The Court may presume that \r\nany book to which it may refer for informa tion on matters of public or general interest, \r\nand that any published map or chart, the statements of which are relevant facts and \r\nwhich is produced for its inspection, was written and published by the person, and at \r\nthe time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written or \r\npublished. \r\n98. Presumption as to telegraphic messages .– The Court may presume that \r\nmessage, forwarded from a telegraph office to the person to whom such message \r\npurports to be addressed, corresponds with a message deli vered for transmission at \r\nthe office from which the message purports to be sent; but the Court shall not make \r\nany presumption as to the person by whom such message was delivered for \r\ntransmission. \r\n99. Presumption as to due execution, etc., of document not produced.– The \r\nCourt shall presume that every document called for and not produced after notice to \r\nproduce, was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by law. \r\n100. Presumption as to documents thirty years old .– Where any document, \r\npurporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the \r\nCourt in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the \r\nsignature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the \r\nhandwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and , in the case \r\nof a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the \r\npersons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. \r\nExplanation.– For the purposes of this Article and Arti cle 92, documents are sold to \r\nbe in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the \r\nperson with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved \r\nto have had, a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are \r\nsuch as to render such an origin probable. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A has been in possession of landed property for a long time. He \r\nproduces from his custody deeds relating to the land, showing his titles to it. The \r\ncustody is proper. \r\n(b) A produce deeds relating to landed property of which he is the \r\nmortgage. The mortgagor is in possession. The custody is proper. \r\n(c) A, a connection of B, produces deeds relating to lands in B’s \r\npossession which were deposited with him by B for safe custody. The custody is \r\nproper. \r\n101. Certified copies of documents thirty years old .– The provisions of Article \r\n100 shall apply to such copy of a document referred to in that Article as is certified in \r\nthe manner provided in Article 87 and is not less tha n thirty years old ; and such \r\ncertified copy may be produced in proof of the contents of the document or part of \r\nthe document of which purports to be a copy. \r\nCHAPTER VI \r\nOF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE \r\n102. Evidence of terms of contracts, g rants and other disposition of property \r\nreduced to form of document .– When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of \r\nany other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and \r\nin all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a \r\ndocument, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or \r\nother disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or \r\nsecondary evidence of its contents in cases in which seco ndary evidence is \r\nadmissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained. \r\nException 1 .– When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in \r\nwriting, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the \r\nwriting by which he is appointed need not be proved. \r\nException 2 .– Wills admitted to probate in Pakistan may be proved by the \r\nprobate. \r\nExplanation 1 .– This Article applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants \r\nor dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document and to cases in \r\nwhich they are contained in more documents that one. \r\nExplanation 2.– Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be \r\nproved. \r\nExplanation 3 .– The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the \r\nfacts referred to in this Article, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to \r\nthe same fact. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) If a contract be contained in several letters, all the letters in which it is \r\ncontained must be proved. \r\n(b) If a contract is contained in a bill of exchange, the bill of exchange must \r\nbe proved. \r\n(c) If a bill of exchange is drawn in a set of three, one only deed be \r\nproved. \r\n(d) A contracts, in writing with B, for the delivery of indigo upon certain \r\nterms. The contract mentions the fact that B had paid A the price of other indigo \r\ncontracted for verbally on another occasion. \r\nOral evidence is offered that no payment was made for the other indigo. The \r\nevidence is admissible. \r\n(e) A gives B a receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered of the \r\npayment. The evidence is admissible. \r\n103. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement .– When the terms of any such \r\ncontract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be \r\nreduced to the form of a document, have be en proved according to the last Article, \r\nno evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the \r\nparties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of \r\ncontradicting, varying adding, to or subtracting from, its terms: \r\nProviso(1).– Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or \r\nwhich would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, \r\nintimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting \r\nparty, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. \r\nProviso ( 2).– The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter \r\non which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms may be \r\nproved. In consid ering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have \r\nregard to the degree of formality of the document. \r\nProviso(3).– The existence of any separate oral agreement , constituting a \r\ncondition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any su ch contract, grant \r\nor disposition of property, may be proved. \r\nProviso (4) .– The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to \r\nrescind or modify any such contract, grant, or disposition of property, may be proved, \r\nexcept in cases in which such cont ract, grant or disposition of property is by law \r\nrequired to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the \r\ntime being as to the registration of documents. \r\nProviso (5) .– Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly \r\nmentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may \r\nbe proved: \r\nProvided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or \r\ninconsistent with the express terms of the contract. \r\nProviso (6) .– Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner th e \r\nlanguage of a document is \r\n12\r\nrelated to existing facts. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A policy of insurance is affected on goods “in ships from Karachi to \r\nLondon”. The goods are shipped in a particular ship, which is last. The fact that t hat \r\nparticular ship was orally excepted from the policy cannot be proved. \r\n(b) A agrees absolutely in writing to pay B, Rs. 1,000 on the first March, \r\n1984. The fact that , at the same time, an oral agreement was made that the money \r\nshould not be paid till the thirty-first March cannot be proved. \r\n(c) An estate called “the Khanpur Estate” is sold by a deed, which contains \r\na map of the property sold. The fact that land not included in the map had always \r\nbeen regarded as part of the estate and was meant to pass by the deed cannot be \r\nproved. \r\n(d) A enters into a written contract with B to work certain mines the \r\nproperty of B, upon certain terms. A was induced to do so by a misrepresentation of \r\nB’s as their value. This fact may be proved. \r\n \r\n12The w ord misprinted “reliated” in the original Gazette corrected as “related”. \r\n(e) A institutes a suit against B for the specific performance of a contract, \r\nand also prays that the contract may be reformed as to one of its provisions, as that \r\nprovision was inserted in it by mistake. A may prove that such a mistake was made \r\nas would by law entitle him to have the contract reformed. \r\n(f) A orders goods of B by a letter in which nothing is said as to the time of \r\npayment, and excepts the goods on delivery. B sues A for the price. A may show \r\nthat the goods were supplied on credit for a term still unexpired. \r\n(g) A sells B a horse and verbally warrants him sound. A gives B a paper \r\nin these words “Bought of a horse for Rs. 500″. B may prove the verbal warranty. \r\n(h) A hires lodging of B, and gives a card on which is written “Rooms, Rs. \r\n200 a month.” A may prove a ve rbal agreement that these terms were to include \r\npartial board. \r\nA hires lodging of B for a year, and regularly stamped agreement, drawn up \r\nby an advocate, is made between them. It is silent on the subject of board. A may \r\nnot prove that board was included in the terms verbally. \r\n(i) A applies to B for a debt due to A by sending a receipt for the money. B \r\nkeeps the receipt and does not send the money. In a suit for the amount A may \r\nprove this. \r\n(j) A and B make a contract in writing to take effect upon the ha ppening of \r\na certain contingency. The writing is left with B, who sues A upon it. A may show the \r\ncircumstances under which it was delivered. \r\n104. Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing \r\nfacts.– When language used in a document is plain in itself, and when it applied \r\naccurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant \r\nto apply to such facts. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA sells to B , by deed, “my estate at Rangpur containing 100 bighas”. A has an \r\nestate at Rangpur containing 100 bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that \r\nthe estate meant to be sold was one situated at a different place and of a different \r\nsize. \r\n105. Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts .– \r\nWhen language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference \r\nto existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA sells to B by deed, “my house in Karachi”. A had no house In Karachi, but it \r\nappears that he h ad a house at Keamari , of which B had been in possession since \r\nthe execution of the deed. These facts may be proved to show that the deed related \r\nto the house at Keamari. \r\n106. Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of \r\nseveral p ersons.– When the facts are such that the language used might have \r\nbeen meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more \r\nthan one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show \r\nwhich of those persons or things it was intended to apply to. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A agrees to sell to B, for Rs. 1,000, “my white horse”. A has two white \r\nhorses. Evidence may be given of facts which shows which of them was meant. \r\n(b) A agrees to accompany B to Hyderabad. Evidence ma y be given of \r\nfacts showing whether Hyderabad in the Dekkhan or Hyderabad Sind was meant. \r\n107. Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts to \r\nneither of which the whole correctly applies .– When the language used applies \r\npartly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the \r\nwhole of it does not apply correctly to either , evidence may be given to show to \r\nwhich of the two it was meant to apply. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA agrees to sell to B “my land at X in the occupation of Y”. A has land at X, \r\nbut not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the occupation of Y, but it is not at \r\nX. Evidence may be given of facts which he meant to sell. \r\n108. Evidence as to mea ning of illegible character , etc.– Evidence may be \r\ngiven to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, of \r\nforeign, obsolete, technical, local and provincial expressions, of abbreviations and of \r\nwords used in a peculiar sense. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA, a sculptor, agrees to sell to B, “ All may mods.” \r\nA has both models and modelling tools. Evidence may be given to show \r\nwhich he meant to sell. \r\n109. Who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of document .– \r\nPersons who are not parties to a document, or their representatives in interest, may \r\ngive evidence of any facts tending to show a contemporaneous agreement varying \r\nthe terms of the document. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA and B make a contract in writing that B shall sell A certain cotton, to be paid \r\nfor on delivery. At the same time they make an oral agreement that three months \r\ncredit shall be given to A. This could not be shown as between A and B, but it might \r\nbe shown by C, if it affected his interest. \r\n110. Saving of provisions of Succession Act relating to wills .– Nothing in this \r\nChapter contained shall be taken to affect any of the provisions of the Succession \r\nAct, 1925 (XXXIX of 1925), as to the construction of wills. \r\nPART II \r\nON PROOF \r\nCHAPTER VII \r\nFACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED \r\n111. Fact Judicially noticeable need not be proved .– No fact of which the Court \r\nwill take judicial notice need be proved. \r\n112. Facts of which Court must take judicial notice .– (1) The Court shall take \r\njudicial notice of the following facts:– \r\n(a) All Pakistan laws; \r\n(b) Articles of War for the Armed Forces; \r\n(c) The co urse of proceeding of the Central Legislature and any \r\nLegislature established under any law for the time being in force in \r\nPakistan; \r\n(d) The seals of all the Courts in Pakistan and of all Courts out of Pakistan \r\nestablished by the authority of the Federal Government or the \r\nGovernment representative, the seals of Court of Admiralty and \r\nMaritime Jurisdiction and of Notaries Public and all seals which any \r\nperson is authorised to use by any Act or Regulation having the force \r\nof law in Pakistan; \r\n(e) The accessi on to office, names, titles, functions and signatures of the \r\npersons filling for the time being any public office in Pakistan, if the fact \r\nof their appointment to such office is notified in the official Gazette; \r\n(f) The existence, title and national flag of every State or Sovereign \r\nrecognised by the Federal Government; \r\n(g) The divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the world, and \r\npublic festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the official Gazette; \r\n(h) The territories under the dominion of Pakistan; \r\n(i) The commencement, continuance and termination of hostilities \r\nbetween Pakistan and any other State or body of persons; \r\n(j) The names of the members and officers of the Court and of their \r\ndeputies and subordinate officers and assistants, and al so of all \r\nofficers acting in execution of its process, and of all advocates and \r\nother persons authorized by law to appear or act before it; \r\n(k) The rule of the road on land or at sea. \r\n(2) In all cases referred to in clause (1), and also on all matters of public \r\nhistory, literature, science or art, the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books \r\nor documents of reference. \r\n(3) If the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any \r\nfact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such p erson produces any such book or \r\ndocument as it may consider necessary to enable it to do so. \r\n113. Facts admitted need not be proved .– No fact need be proved in any \r\nproceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or \r\nwhich, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or \r\nwhich by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted \r\nby their pleadings: \r\nProvided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitt ed to be \r\nproved otherwise than by such admissions. \r\nCHAPTER VIII \r\nESTOPPEL \r\n114. Estoppel.– When one person has by his declaration, act or omission, \r\nintentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to \r\nact upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or \r\nproceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth \r\nof that thing. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A , \r\nand thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. \r\nThe land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the \r\nsale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be \r\nallowed to prove his want of title. \r\n115. Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession .– No tenant of \r\nimmovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the \r\ncontinuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant \r\nhad, at the beginning of the te nancy, a title to such immovable property; and no \r\nperson who came upon any immovable property by the license of the person in \r\npossession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such \r\npossession at the time when such license was given. \r\n116. Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange bailee or licensee .– No acceptor \r\nof a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the drawer had authority to draw \r\nsuch bill or to endorse it; nor shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny th at \r\nhis bailor or licenser had at the lime when the bailment or license commenced, \r\nauthority to make such bailment or grant such license. \r\nExplanation 1.– The acceptor of a bill of exchange may deny that the bill was really \r\ndrawn by the person by whom it purports to have been drawn. \r\nExplanation 2 .– If a bailee delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the \r\nbailor, he may prove that such person had a right to them as against the bailor. \r\nPART III \r\nPRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE \r\nCHAPTER IX \r\nOF THE BURDEN OF PROOF \r\n117. Burden of proof .– (1) Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any \r\nlegal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must \r\nprove that those facts exist. \r\n(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said \r\nthat the burden of proof lies on that person. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A desired a Court to give Judgment that B shall be punished for a \r\ncrime which A says B has committed. \r\nA must prove that B has committed the crime. \r\n(b) A desires a C ourt to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in \r\nthe possession of B by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies to be \r\ntrue. \r\nA must prove the existence of those facts. \r\n118. On whom burden of proof lies .– The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding \r\nlies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts , \r\nwas left to A by the will of C, B’s father. \r\nIf no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his \r\npossession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A. \r\n(b) A sues B for money due on a bond. \r\nThe execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by \r\nfraud, which A denies. \r\nlf no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed as the bond is not \r\ndisputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the burden of proof is on B. \r\n119. Burden of proof as to particular fact .– The burden of proof as to any \r\nparticular fact lies on that person wh o wishes the Court to believe in its existence, \r\nunless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular \r\nperson. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B \r\nadmitted the theft, to C. A must prove the admission. \r\n(b) B wishes the Court to believe that , at the time in question, he was \r\nelsewhere. He must prove it. \r\n120. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible .– The \r\nburden of proving any fact necessary to be proved i n order to enable any person to \r\ngive evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B’s death. \r\n(b) A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the con tents of a lost \r\ndocument. A must prove that the document has been lost. \r\n121. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions .– \r\nWhen a person is accused of any offence the burden of proving the existence of \r\ncircumstances bringing the case wi thin any of the General Exceptions in the \r\nPakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso \r\ncontained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is \r\nupon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) “A” accused of murder, alleges that by reason of unsoundness of mind, \r\nhe did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A. \r\n(b) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by grave and sudden provocation , \r\nhe was deprived of the power of self-control. The burden of proof is on A. \r\n(c) Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) , provides \r\nthat whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335 voluntarily causes \r\ngrievous hurt, shall be sub ject to certain punishments. A is charged with voluntarily \r\ncausing grievous hurt under Section 325. The burden of proving the circumstances \r\nbringing the case under Section 336 lies on A. \r\n122. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge .– When any fact is \r\nespecially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is \r\nupon him. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which \r\nthe character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of prov ing that \r\nintention is upon him. \r\n(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of \r\nproving that he had a ticket is on him. . \r\n123. Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within \r\nthirty years.– Subject to Article 124, when the question is whether a man is alive or \r\ndead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that \r\nhe is dead is on the person who affirms it. \r\n124. Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for \r\nseven years .– When the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved \r\nthat he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have \r\nheard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to \r\nthe person who affirms it. \r\n125. Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and \r\ntenant, principal and agent .– When the question is whether persons are partners , \r\nlandlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been show n that they have \r\nbeen acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to \r\nstand, to each other in those relationships respectively , is on the person who affirms \r\nit. \r\n126. Burden of proof as to ownership .– When the question is wh ether any \r\nperson is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of \r\nproving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the \r\nowner. \r\n127. Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation o f \r\nactive confidence .– When there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction \r\nbetween parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence \r\nthe burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a \r\nposition of active confidence. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) The good faith of a sale by a client to an advocate is in question in a \r\nsuit brought by the client. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is \r\non the advocate. \r\n(b) The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in \r\nquestion in a suit brought by the son. The burden of proving the good faith of the \r\ntransaction is on the father. \r\n128. Birth during marriage conclusive proof of legitimacy .– (1) The fact that \r\nany person was born dur ing the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother \r\nand any man and not earlier than the expiration of six lunar months from the date of \r\nthe marriage, or within two years after its dissolution, the mother remaining \r\nunmarried, shall be conclusive pro of that he is the legitimate child of that man, \r\nunless– \r\n(a) the husband had refused, or refuses, to own the child; or \r\n(b) the child was born after the expiration of six lunar months from the date \r\non which the woman had accepted that the period of iddat h ad come to \r\nan end. \r\n(2) Nothing contained in clause (1) shall apply to a non -Muslim if it is \r\ninconsistent with his faith. \r\n129. Court may presume existence of certain facts .– The Court may presume \r\nthe existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have ha ppened, regard being had to \r\nthe common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private \r\nbusiness, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. \r\nIllustrations \r\nThe Court may presume– \r\n(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is \r\neither the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, \r\nunless he can account for his possession ; \r\n(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in \r\nmaterial particulars ; \r\n(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was accepted or \r\nendorsed for good consideration; \r\n(d) that a \r\n13\r\nthing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence \r\nwithin a period shorter than that within which such things or states of \r\nthings usually cease to exist, is still in existence ; \r\n \r\n13Misprinted in official Gazette as “think”. \r\n(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed ; \r\n(f) that the common course of business has been followed in particular \r\ncases; \r\n(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, \r\nbe unfavourable to the person who withholds it ; \r\n(h) that, if a man refuses to answer a question which he is not compelled \r\nto answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him; \r\n(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the \r\nobligor, the obligation has been discharged. \r\nBut the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following, in \r\nconsidering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular \r\ncase before it; \r\nas to illustration (a) .– a shopkeeper has in hi s till marked rupee soon \r\nafter it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession specifically, \r\nbut is continually receiving rupees in the course of his business ; \r\nas to illustration (b) .– A, person of the highest character, is tried for \r\ncausing a man’s death by an act of negligence in arranging certain \r\nmachinery, B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in \r\nthe arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and admits and \r\nexplains the common carelessness of A and himself ; \r\nas to illustra tion (b) .– a crime is committed by several persons. A, B \r\nand C , three of the criminals, are captured on the shop and kept apart \r\nfrom each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D and \r\nthe accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render \r\nprevious concert highly improbable; \r\nas to illustration (c).– A. the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of \r\nbusiness. B , the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person, \r\ncompletely under A’s influence; \r\nas to illustration (d).– It is proved that a river ran in a certain course five \r\nyears ago, but is known that there have been floods since that time \r\nwhich might change its course ; \r\nas to illustration (e) .– a judicial act, the regularity of which is in \r\nquestion, was performed under exceptional circumstances ; \r\nas to illustration (f).– the question is, whether a letter was received. It is \r\nshown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was \r\ninterrupted by disturbances; \r\nas to illustration (g) .– a man refuses to produce a document which \r\nwould bear on a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but \r\nwhich might also injure the feelings and reputation of his family; \r\nas to illustration (h) .– a man refuses to answer a question which he is \r\nnot compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it mi ght cause loss \r\nto him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is \r\nasked ; \r\nas to illustration (i) .– a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the \r\ncircumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it. \r\nCHAPTER X \r\nOF THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESS \r\n130. Order of production and examination of witnesses .– The order in which \r\nwitnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice, for \r\nthe time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and, in th e \r\nabsence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court. \r\n131. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence .– (1) When either party \r\nproposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give \r\nthe evidence in what manner the al leged fact, if proved, would be relevant, and the \r\nJudge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant \r\nand not otherwise. \r\n(2) If the fact proposed, to be proved is one of which evidence is \r\nadmissible only upon proo f of s ome other fact, such last -mentioned fact must be \r\nproved before evidence is given of the fact first -mentioned, unless the party \r\nundertakes to give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with such \r\nundertaking. \r\n(3) If the relevancy of one alleged fac t depends upon an other alleged fact \r\nbeing first proved, the Judge may , in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first \r\nfact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of \r\nthe second fact before evidence is given of the first fact. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant fact by a person \r\nalleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under Article 46. \r\nThe fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to \r\nprove the statement, before evidence is given of the statement. \r\n(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a document said to \r\nbe lost. \r\nThe fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person proposing to \r\nproduce the copy, before the copy is produced. \r\n(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been \r\nstolen. \r\nIt is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. \r\nThe relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the property. The Court \r\nmay, in its discret ion, either require the property to be identified before the denial of \r\nthe possession is proved or permit the denial of possession to be proved before the \r\nproperty is identified. \r\n(d) It is proposed to prove a fact (A) which is said to have been the cause \r\nor effect of a fact -in-issue. There are several intermediate facts (B, C and D) which \r\nmust be shown to exist before the fact (A) can be regarded as the cause or effect of \r\nthe fact-in-issue. \r\nThe Court may either permit A to be proved before B, C or D is pro ved, or \r\nmay require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A. \r\n132. Examination-in-chief, etc .– (1) The examination of a witness by the party \r\nwho calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. \r\n(2) The examination of a witness by the adverse p arty shall be called his \r\ncross-examination. \r\n(3) The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross -examination by \r\nthe party who called him, shall be called his re-examination. \r\n133. Order of examinations .– (1) Witnesses shall be first examined -in-chief, then \r\n(if the adverse party so desires) cross -examined, then (if the party calling him so \r\ndesires) re-examined. \r\n(2) The examination and cross -examination must relate to relevant facts \r\nbut the cross -examination need not be confined to the facts to which t he witness \r\ntestified on his examination-in-chief. \r\n(3) The re -examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters \r\nreferred to in cross -examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, \r\nintroduced in re -examination, the adverse party m ay further cross -examine that \r\nmatter. \r\n134. Cross-examination of person called to produce a document .– A person \r\nsummoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that \r\nhe produces it and cannot be cross -examined unless and until he i s called as a \r\nwitness. \r\n135. Witnesses to character .– Witnesses to character may be cross -examined \r\nand re-examined. \r\n136. Leading questions .– Any question suggesting the answer which the person \r\nputting in wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question. \r\n137. When leading questions must not be asked .– (1) Leading questions must \r\nnot, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination -in-chief, or in a \r\nre-examination, except with the permission of the Court. \r\n(2) The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are \r\nintroductory or undisputed, or which have in its opinion, been already sufficiently \r\nproved. \r\n138. When leading questions may be asked .– Leading questions may be asked \r\nin cross examination. \r\n139. Evidence as to matt ers in writing .– Any witness may be asked, whilst under \r\nexamination, whether any contract, grant or other disposition of property, as to which \r\nhe is giving evidence, was not contained in a document, and if he says that it was, or \r\nif he is about to make any statement as to the contents of any document, which in \r\nthe opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the adverse party may object to such \r\nevidence being given until such document is produced, or until facts have been \r\nproved which entitle the party who c alled the witness to give secondary evidence of \r\nit. \r\nExplanation.– A witness may give oral evidence of statements made by other \r\npersons about the contents of documents if such statements are in themselves \r\nrelevant facts. \r\nIllustration \r\nThe question is, whether A assaulted B. \r\nC deposes that he heard A say to D –“B wrote a letter accusing me of theft, \r\nand I will be revenged on him”. This statement is relevant, as showing A’s motive for \r\nthe assault, and evidence may be given of it , though no other evidence is giv en \r\nabout the letter. \r\n140. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing .– A witness may \r\nbe cross -examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduce into \r\nwriting, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being sho wn to him, \r\nor being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention \r\nmust, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be \r\nused for the purpose of contradicting him. \r\n141. Questions lawful in c ross-examination.– When a witness is cross -\r\nexamined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked \r\nany questions which tend– \r\n(1) to test his veracity, \r\n(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or \r\n(3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to \r\nsuch questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or \r\nmight expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or \r\nforfeiture. \r\n142. When witness to be compelled to a nswer.– if any such question relates to \r\na matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions of Article 15 shall apply \r\nthereto. \r\n143. Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness \r\ncompelled to answer .– If any such question relates to a matter not relevant to the \r\nsuit or proceeding, except in so far as it affects the credit of the witness by injuring \r\nhis character, the Court shall decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to \r\nanswer it, and may, if it thinks fit, warn the wit ness that he is not obliged to answer it. \r\nIn exercising its discretion, the Court shall have regard t o the following \r\nconsiderations:– \r\n(1) such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that the truth of \r\nthe imputation conveyed by them would seriou sly effect the opinion of \r\nthe Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he \r\ntestifies; \r\n(2) such questions are improper if the imputation which they convey \r\nrelates to matters so remote in time, or of such a character, that the \r\ntruth of the imputation would not affect, or would affect in slight degree, \r\nthe opinion of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter \r\nto which he testifies; \r\n(3) such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion between \r\nthe importance of the importation made against the witness’s character \r\nand the importance of his evidence; \r\n(4) the Court may, if it sees fit, draw , from the witness’s refusal to answer, \r\nthe inference that the answer if given would be unfavourable. \r\n144. Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds .– No such question \r\nas is referred to in Article 143 ought to be asked, unless the person asking it has \r\nreasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation which it conveys is well founded. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) An advocate is instructed by an attorney that an important witness is a \r\ndakait. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dakiat. \r\n(b) An advocate is informed by a person in Court that an important witness \r\nis a dakait. The informant, on be ing questioned by the advocate, given satisfactory \r\nreasons for his statement. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness \r\nwhether he is a dakait. \r\n(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, is asked at random \r\nwhether he is a dakait. There are here no reasonable grounds for the question. \r\n(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to \r\nhis mode of life and means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This may be a \r\nreasonable ground for asking him if he is a dakait. \r\n145. Procedure of Court in case of question being asked without reasonable \r\ngrounds.– If the Court is of opinion that any such question was asked without \r\nreasonable grounds, it may, if it was asked by any advocate, report the \r\ncircumstances of the case to the High Court or other authority to which such \r\nadvocate is subject in the exercise of his profession. \r\n146. Indecent and scandalous questions .– The Court may forbid any question or \r\ninquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or \r\ninquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the Court unless they \r\nrelate to facts -in-issue, or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine \r\nwhether or not the facts-in-issue existed. \r\n147. Procedure of Court in cases of defamation libel and slander .– When a \r\nperson is prosecuted or used for making or publishing an imputation of a defamatory, \r\nlibellous or slanderous nature, the Court shall not, before it has recorded its findings \r\non the issues whether such person did make or publish such imputation, and \r\nwhether such imputation is true, permit any question to be put to any witness for the \r\npurpose of injuring the character of the person in respect of whom such imputation \r\nhas, or is alleged to have , been made, or any other person, whether dead or alive, in \r\nwhom he is interested, except in so far as any such question may be necessary for \r\nthe purpose of determining the truth of the imputations alleged to have been made or \r\npublished. \r\n148. Questions intended to insult or annoy .– The Court sh all forbid any \r\nquestion which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or which , though \r\nproper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form. \r\n149. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing \r\nveracity.– When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is \r\nrelevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his \r\ncharacter, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but , if he answers falsely, he \r\nmay afterwards be charged with giving false evidence. \r\nException 1 .– If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted \r\nof any crime denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction. \r\nException 2 .– If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his \r\nimpartiality and answers it by denying the suggested, he may be contradicted. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of fraud. \r\nThe claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had not made a \r\nfraudulent claim. He denies it. \r\nEvidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim. \r\nThe evidence is inadmissible. \r\n(b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a situation for \r\ndishonesty. \r\nHe denies it. \r\nEvidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty. \r\nThe evidence is not admissible. \r\n(c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Lahore. \r\nA is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Faisalabad. He denies \r\nit. \r\nEvidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Faisalabad. \r\nThe evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact which affects his \r\ncredit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B was seen on the day in question in \r\nLahore. \r\nIn each of these cases the witness might, if his denial was false, be charged \r\nwith giving false evidence. \r\n(d) A is asked whether his family has not had a blood feud with the family \r\nof D against whom he gives evidence. \r\nHe denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the question tends to \r\nimpeach his impartiality. \r\n150. Question by party to his own witness .– The Court may, in its discretion, \r\npermit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put \r\nin cross-examination by the adverse party. \r\n151. Impeaching credit of witness .– The credit of a witness may be impeach ed \r\nin the following ways by the adverse party , or, with the consent of the Court, by the \r\nparty who calls him: \r\n(1) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge \r\nof the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit; \r\n(2) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of \r\na bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his \r\nevidence; \r\n(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence \r\nwhich is liable to be contradicted; \r\n(4) when a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, it may be \r\nshown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character. \r\nExplanation.– A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, \r\nupon his examination-in-chief, give reas ons for his belief, but he may be asked his \r\nreasons in cross - examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be \r\ncontradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving \r\nfalse evidence. \r\nIllustrations \r\n(a) A sues B for the price of goods sold and delivered to B. C says that A \r\ndelivered the goods to B. \r\nEvidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, he said that he had \r\nnot delivered the goods to B. \r\nThe evidence is admissible. \r\n(b) A is indicated for the murder of B. \r\nC says that B, when dying, declared that A had given B the wound of which \r\nhe died. \r\nEvidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, C said that the \r\nwound was not given by A or in his presence. \r\nThe evidence is admissible. \r\n152. Questions tending to corr oborate evidence of relevant fact admissible .– \r\nWhen a witness whom it is intended to corroborate gives evidence of any relevant \r\nfact, he may be questioned as to any other circumstances which he observed at or \r\nnear to the time or place at which such relevan t fact occurred if the Court is of \r\nopinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the testimony of the \r\nwitness as to the relevant fact which he testifies. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA, on accomplice, gives an account of robbery in which he took part . He \r\ndescribes various incidents unconnected with the robbery which occurred on his way \r\nto and from the place where it was committed. \r\nIndependent evidence of these facts may be given in order to corroborate his \r\nevidence as to the robbery itself. \r\n153. Former s tatements of witness may be proved to corroborate later \r\ntestimony as to same fact .– In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any \r\nformer statement made by such witness relating to the same fact at or about the time \r\nwhen the fact took place, or be fore any authority legally competent to investigate the \r\nfacts, may be proved. \r\n154. What matters may be proved in connection with proved statement \r\nrelevant under Article 46 or 47 .– Whenever any statement, relevant under Article \r\n46 or 47, is proved, all ma tters may be proved either in order to contradict or \r\ncorroborate it, or in order to impeach or confirm the credit of the person by whom it \r\nwas made, which might have been proved if that person had been called as a \r\nwitness and had denied upon cross-examination the truth of the matter suggested. \r\n155. Refreshing memory .– (1) A witness may, while under examination, fresh his \r\nmemory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction \r\nconcerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterward s that the Court considers it \r\nlikely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory. \r\n(2) The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other \r\nperson, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read if he knew \r\nit to be correct. \r\n(3) Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any \r\ndocument, he may , with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such \r\ndocument: \r\nProvided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non -\r\nproduction of the original. \r\n(4) An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional \r\ntreaties. \r\n156. Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in Article 155 .– A \r\nwitness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in \r\nArticle 155, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is \r\nsure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA book -keeper may testify to facts record ed by him in books regularly ke pt in \r\nthe course of busine ss, if he knows that the books were correctly kept, although he \r\nhas forgotten the particular transactions entered. \r\n157. Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory .– Any writing \r\nreferred to under the provisions of the two last proceeding A rticles must be produced \r\nand shown to the adverse party if he requires it such party may, if he pleases, cross –\r\nexamine the witness thereupon. \r\n158. Production of documents .– (1) A witness summoned to produce a \r\ndocument shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to Court, notwithstanding \r\nany objection which there may be to its production or to in its admissibility. The \r\nvalidity of any objection shall be decided on by the Court. \r\n(2) The Court, if it sees fit may inspect the document , unless it refe rs to \r\nmatters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility. \r\n(3) If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be \r\ntranslated, the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents \r\nsecret, unless the document is to be given in evidence; and , if the translator \r\ndisobeys such direction, he shall be held to have committed an offence under \r\nSection 166 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). \r\n159. Giving, as evidence of document call ed for and produced on notice .– \r\nWhen a party calls for a document which he has given the other party notice to \r\nproduce, and such document is produced and inspected by the party calling for its \r\nproduction, he is bound to give it as evidence if the party pro ducing it requires him to \r\ndo so. \r\n160. Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on \r\nnotice.– When a party refuses to produce, a document which he has had notice to \r\nproduce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without the consent of \r\nthe other party or the order of the Court. \r\nIllustrations \r\nA sues B on an agreement and gives B three notice to produce it. At the trial \r\nA calls for the document and B refuses to produce it. A gives secondary evidence of \r\nits contents. B seeks to produce the document itself to contradict the secondary \r\nevidence given by A, or in order to show that the agreement is not stamped. He \r\ncannot do so. \r\n161. Judge’s power to put questions or order production .– The Judge may, in \r\norder to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he \r\nplaces, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact \r\nrelevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and \r\nneither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any \r\nsuch question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross -examine any \r\nwitness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: \r\nProvided that the Judgment must be based upon facts declared by th is Order \r\nto be relevant, and duly proved: \r\nProvided also that this Article shall not authorise any Judge to compel any \r\nwitness to answer any question or to produce any document which such witness \r\nwould be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under Articl es 4 to 14, both \r\ninclusive, if the question were asked or the document were called for by the adverse \r\nparty; nor shall the judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other \r\nperson to ask under Article 143 or 144; nor shall he dispense with pr imary evidence \r\nof any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted. \r\nCHAPTER XI \r\nOF IMPROPER ADMISSION AND REJECTION OF EVIDENCE \r\n162. No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence .– The \r\nimproper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new \r\ntrial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the Court before \r\nwhich such objection is raised that, independent of the evidence objected to and \r\nadmitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected \r\nevidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision. \r\nCHAPTER XII \r\nDECISION OF CASE ON THE BASIS OF OATH \r\n163. Acceptance or denial of claim on oath .– (1) When the plaintiff takes oath in \r\nsupport of his cl aim, the Court shall, on the application of the plaintiff, call upon the \r\ndefendant to deny the claim on oath. \r\n(2) The Court may pass such orders as to costs and other matters as it \r\nmay deem fit. \r\n(3) Nothing in this Article applies to laws relating to the enforcement of \r\nHudood or other criminal cases. \r\nCHAPTER XIII \r\nMISCELLANEOUS \r\n164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern \r\ndevices, etc .– In such cases as the Court may consider appropriate, the Court may \r\nallow to be produced any e vidence that may have become available because of \r\nmodern devices or techniques. \r\n165. Order to override other laws .– The provisions of this Order shall have effect \r\nnotwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. \r\n166. Repeal.– The Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), is hereby repealed.", "passage_offset_convention": "zero-based Unicode code points and UTF8 bytes; end exclusive", "passages": [ { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-0-1787:ad0ee0918ae4972842b4b11e1969d86d6dddca8b7740e363ec3535c5346c87f5", "character_start": 0, "character_end": 1787, "utf8_byte_start": 0, "utf8_byte_end": 1791, "passage_sha256": "ad0ee0918ae4972842b4b11e1969d86d6dddca8b7740e363ec3535c5346c87f5", "reader_fragment": "p-0-1787-ad0ee0918ae49728" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-1787-3531:8aed3f277cb475f0f66ef9492a123c8b9a21427963a7b6f19e88cb0518fcf196", "character_start": 1787, "character_end": 3531, "utf8_byte_start": 1791, "utf8_byte_end": 3535, "passage_sha256": "8aed3f277cb475f0f66ef9492a123c8b9a21427963a7b6f19e88cb0518fcf196", "reader_fragment": "p-1787-3531-8aed3f277cb475f0" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-3531-5317:51f12b34e15d7b1e14526d0082da484b3da43da89e1c92424dc598d422b5bed9", "character_start": 3531, "character_end": 5317, "utf8_byte_start": 3535, "utf8_byte_end": 5321, "passage_sha256": "51f12b34e15d7b1e14526d0082da484b3da43da89e1c92424dc598d422b5bed9", "reader_fragment": "p-3531-5317-51f12b34e15d7b1e" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-5317-7050:73ca102e44aa6c29083f2f0ec084154db35227d2df735c34e6201e2e6682ea10", "character_start": 5317, "character_end": 7050, "utf8_byte_start": 5321, "utf8_byte_end": 7054, "passage_sha256": "73ca102e44aa6c29083f2f0ec084154db35227d2df735c34e6201e2e6682ea10", "reader_fragment": "p-5317-7050-73ca102e44aa6c29" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-7050-8845:313a277dd97ae6cbe4718e972039bae89b771eb50f1f2c94e3d9ca29d7b20f35", "character_start": 7050, "character_end": 8845, "utf8_byte_start": 7054, "utf8_byte_end": 8849, "passage_sha256": "313a277dd97ae6cbe4718e972039bae89b771eb50f1f2c94e3d9ca29d7b20f35", "reader_fragment": "p-7050-8845-313a277dd97ae6cb" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-8845-10616:f86258c421e97e075f8c5c5a25f13791d0a14585bb674b610d52479d5c9681ca", "character_start": 8845, "character_end": 10616, "utf8_byte_start": 8849, "utf8_byte_end": 10620, "passage_sha256": "f86258c421e97e075f8c5c5a25f13791d0a14585bb674b610d52479d5c9681ca", "reader_fragment": "p-8845-10616-f86258c421e97e07" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-10616-12366:ae16640ba0bbd3b0fabdd77ff06132103a03d7b901d97eb69cf3baaf34e11627", "character_start": 10616, "character_end": 12366, "utf8_byte_start": 10620, "utf8_byte_end": 12390, "passage_sha256": "ae16640ba0bbd3b0fabdd77ff06132103a03d7b901d97eb69cf3baaf34e11627", "reader_fragment": "p-10616-12366-ae16640ba0bbd3b0" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-12366-14164:2175a0dccd0833a56f389b0c817101d17de9be396a7d4cbfc90fdf4fd418bf1f", "character_start": 12366, "character_end": 14164, "utf8_byte_start": 12390, "utf8_byte_end": 14204, "passage_sha256": "2175a0dccd0833a56f389b0c817101d17de9be396a7d4cbfc90fdf4fd418bf1f", "reader_fragment": "p-12366-14164-2175a0dccd0833a5" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-14164-15901:16dc1bc39823695bed601cc003d13f002035b05a8c431ca7f357522de20ed50e", "character_start": 14164, "character_end": 15901, "utf8_byte_start": 14204, "utf8_byte_end": 15951, "passage_sha256": "16dc1bc39823695bed601cc003d13f002035b05a8c431ca7f357522de20ed50e", "reader_fragment": "p-14164-15901-16dc1bc39823695b" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-15901-17654:318053b356c4485ddd041dc1412635d7c43d43ecbdfbb6167bbcc3b9b4e0c9d5", "character_start": 15901, "character_end": 17654, "utf8_byte_start": 15951, "utf8_byte_end": 17744, "passage_sha256": "318053b356c4485ddd041dc1412635d7c43d43ecbdfbb6167bbcc3b9b4e0c9d5", "reader_fragment": "p-15901-17654-318053b356c4485d" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-17654-19428:64f10fe4eab1aef83523c2f93bd64a9e0002eae159e2843335665276c2aa4b2c", "character_start": 17654, "character_end": 19428, "utf8_byte_start": 17744, "utf8_byte_end": 19522, "passage_sha256": "64f10fe4eab1aef83523c2f93bd64a9e0002eae159e2843335665276c2aa4b2c", "reader_fragment": "p-17654-19428-64f10fe4eab1aef8" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-19428-21175:06bc8aac166605b7e10cc7dc3b82fd0a8d654f07dec18ce668bd8239a771f160", "character_start": 19428, "character_end": 21175, "utf8_byte_start": 19522, "utf8_byte_end": 21293, "passage_sha256": "06bc8aac166605b7e10cc7dc3b82fd0a8d654f07dec18ce668bd8239a771f160", "reader_fragment": "p-19428-21175-06bc8aac166605b7" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-21175-22918:0e532636de44c38aede4dd5d0f293149c7997d67e204f74c3a65531ca37c4c60", "character_start": 21175, "character_end": 22918, "utf8_byte_start": 21293, "utf8_byte_end": 23050, "passage_sha256": "0e532636de44c38aede4dd5d0f293149c7997d67e204f74c3a65531ca37c4c60", "reader_fragment": "p-21175-22918-0e532636de44c38a" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-22918-24679:1b2b5672c0e51c44c159a96e0a3089ee670385ac3c7811ee7e6cfa5ca633645e", "character_start": 22918, "character_end": 24679, "utf8_byte_start": 23050, "utf8_byte_end": 24819, "passage_sha256": "1b2b5672c0e51c44c159a96e0a3089ee670385ac3c7811ee7e6cfa5ca633645e", "reader_fragment": "p-22918-24679-1b2b5672c0e51c44" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-24679-26464:9ca8a425b892036e2cec4039e2b54ef5931b78c21831b2d5930fb59096431aaf", "character_start": 24679, "character_end": 26464, "utf8_byte_start": 24819, "utf8_byte_end": 26614, "passage_sha256": "9ca8a425b892036e2cec4039e2b54ef5931b78c21831b2d5930fb59096431aaf", "reader_fragment": "p-24679-26464-9ca8a425b892036e" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-26464-28260:2e151cce9d0c20b9a327471ae1fdd16b0c38506282dccae6d5063906d696739c", "character_start": 26464, "character_end": 28260, "utf8_byte_start": 26614, "utf8_byte_end": 28430, "passage_sha256": "2e151cce9d0c20b9a327471ae1fdd16b0c38506282dccae6d5063906d696739c", "reader_fragment": "p-26464-28260-2e151cce9d0c20b9" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-28260-30055:a5ea73673f02bf3c9c48c56c23b609db0b00cb383b686bafe82c27827602aa87", "character_start": 28260, "character_end": 30055, "utf8_byte_start": 28430, "utf8_byte_end": 30227, "passage_sha256": "a5ea73673f02bf3c9c48c56c23b609db0b00cb383b686bafe82c27827602aa87", "reader_fragment": "p-28260-30055-a5ea73673f02bf3c" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-30055-31838:ce80f677e27d1649e6881d4461eb1fd9708c0d7ad39ce5b105f2e3effdfc6bfa", "character_start": 30055, "character_end": 31838, "utf8_byte_start": 30227, "utf8_byte_end": 32022, "passage_sha256": "ce80f677e27d1649e6881d4461eb1fd9708c0d7ad39ce5b105f2e3effdfc6bfa", "reader_fragment": "p-30055-31838-ce80f677e27d1649" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-31838-33568:3dcf05f7f119f298066b82d16b6334f03f48a4d40ea2aa0594e5af4b46c7d87f", "character_start": 31838, "character_end": 33568, "utf8_byte_start": 32022, "utf8_byte_end": 33764, "passage_sha256": "3dcf05f7f119f298066b82d16b6334f03f48a4d40ea2aa0594e5af4b46c7d87f", "reader_fragment": "p-31838-33568-3dcf05f7f119f298" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-33568-35359:8c580442cf6ccf4d41fe57176ce3992d97987cb80556d827fe25faaf2683653c", "character_start": 33568, "character_end": 35359, "utf8_byte_start": 33764, "utf8_byte_end": 35557, "passage_sha256": "8c580442cf6ccf4d41fe57176ce3992d97987cb80556d827fe25faaf2683653c", "reader_fragment": "p-33568-35359-8c580442cf6ccf4d" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-35359-37147:f939133b134f1c30cc48971c91ad0b36b54646c158972a634b5693c7be31bc04", "character_start": 35359, "character_end": 37147, "utf8_byte_start": 35557, "utf8_byte_end": 37361, "passage_sha256": "f939133b134f1c30cc48971c91ad0b36b54646c158972a634b5693c7be31bc04", "reader_fragment": "p-35359-37147-f939133b134f1c30" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-37147-38911:70901da7f97f782162cf195eb90b98f4966261dacb6110478bb9f123e964081d", "character_start": 37147, "character_end": 38911, "utf8_byte_start": 37361, "utf8_byte_end": 39133, "passage_sha256": "70901da7f97f782162cf195eb90b98f4966261dacb6110478bb9f123e964081d", "reader_fragment": "p-37147-38911-70901da7f97f7821" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-38911-40687:a9e5bc80a7196c5a1719583e5e7d051c193bbe2b85be1af83a63fa84eb337d81", "character_start": 38911, "character_end": 40687, "utf8_byte_start": 39133, "utf8_byte_end": 40915, "passage_sha256": "a9e5bc80a7196c5a1719583e5e7d051c193bbe2b85be1af83a63fa84eb337d81", "reader_fragment": "p-38911-40687-a9e5bc80a7196c5a" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-40687-42407:c5ac7b00ad6e94b45acefc61ed3213e2a979da46d22a1fbdf3e4cda8bd39429d", "character_start": 40687, "character_end": 42407, "utf8_byte_start": 40915, "utf8_byte_end": 42651, "passage_sha256": "c5ac7b00ad6e94b45acefc61ed3213e2a979da46d22a1fbdf3e4cda8bd39429d", "reader_fragment": "p-40687-42407-c5ac7b00ad6e94b4" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-42407-44134:ec78ff164d674e49e7bec26ccecd8ff928bd4d56dbc2f2691e6568600f813109", "character_start": 42407, "character_end": 44134, "utf8_byte_start": 42651, "utf8_byte_end": 44384, "passage_sha256": "ec78ff164d674e49e7bec26ccecd8ff928bd4d56dbc2f2691e6568600f813109", "reader_fragment": "p-42407-44134-ec78ff164d674e49" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-44134-45930:fab2b8ccdcf34ad02bb36e9dfbb9f1cb4b940d123723181cb0be4d1fc8c7c87f", "character_start": 44134, "character_end": 45930, "utf8_byte_start": 44384, "utf8_byte_end": 46194, "passage_sha256": "fab2b8ccdcf34ad02bb36e9dfbb9f1cb4b940d123723181cb0be4d1fc8c7c87f", "reader_fragment": "p-44134-45930-fab2b8ccdcf34ad0" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-45930-47649:9b44f5d6ca4918f859e5f61a66539a92e60c5378ad4a97e1645ada16b4c7cbd0", "character_start": 45930, "character_end": 47649, "utf8_byte_start": 46194, "utf8_byte_end": 47919, "passage_sha256": "9b44f5d6ca4918f859e5f61a66539a92e60c5378ad4a97e1645ada16b4c7cbd0", "reader_fragment": "p-45930-47649-9b44f5d6ca4918f8" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-47649-49446:11a6a0842bfad028bc9e2337365cdae4efc0d3c0697ecdfb6766ad1c754815f5", "character_start": 47649, "character_end": 49446, "utf8_byte_start": 47919, "utf8_byte_end": 49730, "passage_sha256": "11a6a0842bfad028bc9e2337365cdae4efc0d3c0697ecdfb6766ad1c754815f5", "reader_fragment": "p-47649-49446-11a6a0842bfad028" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-49446-51230:ce516af153475d0b181a48fd74234379c24a07c8a2fd5ca53105bcab5725a79b", "character_start": 49446, "character_end": 51230, "utf8_byte_start": 49730, "utf8_byte_end": 51524, "passage_sha256": "ce516af153475d0b181a48fd74234379c24a07c8a2fd5ca53105bcab5725a79b", "reader_fragment": "p-49446-51230-ce516af153475d0b" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-51230-53027:a8d74eb593b35f3d71d2d84489b5a1a21879cb37a546df9d581946d25a62250c", "character_start": 51230, "character_end": 53027, "utf8_byte_start": 51524, "utf8_byte_end": 53333, "passage_sha256": "a8d74eb593b35f3d71d2d84489b5a1a21879cb37a546df9d581946d25a62250c", "reader_fragment": "p-51230-53027-a8d74eb593b35f3d" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-53027-54780:0ba57a64f5dcf098c9fffb19a8bfcaaa7caabc962606d0dc34acd623f1ff69dd", "character_start": 53027, "character_end": 54780, "utf8_byte_start": 53333, "utf8_byte_end": 55086, "passage_sha256": "0ba57a64f5dcf098c9fffb19a8bfcaaa7caabc962606d0dc34acd623f1ff69dd", "reader_fragment": "p-53027-54780-0ba57a64f5dcf098" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-54780-56524:ca581c6feca74c9d68e937dc88a80a88cee4aae6d0906cd5a311331f96802caf", "character_start": 54780, "character_end": 56524, "utf8_byte_start": 55086, "utf8_byte_end": 56838, "passage_sha256": "ca581c6feca74c9d68e937dc88a80a88cee4aae6d0906cd5a311331f96802caf", "reader_fragment": "p-54780-56524-ca581c6feca74c9d" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-56524-58253:a4e6358fb2cd086f588dfaf1688ea03ba6075b81b799d4204d773a3089655323", "character_start": 56524, "character_end": 58253, "utf8_byte_start": 56838, "utf8_byte_end": 58581, "passage_sha256": "a4e6358fb2cd086f588dfaf1688ea03ba6075b81b799d4204d773a3089655323", "reader_fragment": "p-56524-58253-a4e6358fb2cd086f" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-58253-60039:8699432d6b8e344ccf50b5249cf7cfe921e6bd778ae20b98d5c308a7d3142fe3", "character_start": 58253, "character_end": 60039, "utf8_byte_start": 58581, "utf8_byte_end": 60391, "passage_sha256": "8699432d6b8e344ccf50b5249cf7cfe921e6bd778ae20b98d5c308a7d3142fe3", "reader_fragment": "p-58253-60039-8699432d6b8e344c" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-60039-61807:7e70e3f43a67913a312c94c799fa1e30963898eb88506a6df572e35e1353c364", "character_start": 60039, "character_end": 61807, "utf8_byte_start": 60391, "utf8_byte_end": 62171, "passage_sha256": "7e70e3f43a67913a312c94c799fa1e30963898eb88506a6df572e35e1353c364", "reader_fragment": "p-60039-61807-7e70e3f43a67913a" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-61807-63597:36a496c47fd1a1368598789dbae33be895fd462a5a3fc81e7238e4e3a4d33aab", "character_start": 61807, "character_end": 63597, "utf8_byte_start": 62171, "utf8_byte_end": 63969, "passage_sha256": "36a496c47fd1a1368598789dbae33be895fd462a5a3fc81e7238e4e3a4d33aab", "reader_fragment": "p-61807-63597-36a496c47fd1a136" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-63597-65346:a12210bc1bd8d24660537c0c06e2b3f4886626a991c7157d320636a9b51c2a80", "character_start": 63597, "character_end": 65346, "utf8_byte_start": 63969, "utf8_byte_end": 65730, "passage_sha256": "a12210bc1bd8d24660537c0c06e2b3f4886626a991c7157d320636a9b51c2a80", "reader_fragment": "p-63597-65346-a12210bc1bd8d246" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-65346-67134:62bc0567318c8188c74ce229369b7754fd0474e138e50360492b8fa2055c8b27", "character_start": 65346, "character_end": 67134, "utf8_byte_start": 65730, "utf8_byte_end": 67528, "passage_sha256": "62bc0567318c8188c74ce229369b7754fd0474e138e50360492b8fa2055c8b27", "reader_fragment": "p-65346-67134-62bc0567318c8188" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-67134-68820:276a08c160e8d0afa1badf7fa9524e4d44462005ddfa475128ffaf09f6a087b0", "character_start": 67134, "character_end": 68820, "utf8_byte_start": 67528, "utf8_byte_end": 69222, "passage_sha256": "276a08c160e8d0afa1badf7fa9524e4d44462005ddfa475128ffaf09f6a087b0", "reader_fragment": "p-67134-68820-276a08c160e8d0af" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-68820-70533:5031655202da8c65e87e24accbfa1855bd8e4f91fd7e3198ab5e776a1614340f", "character_start": 68820, "character_end": 70533, "utf8_byte_start": 69222, "utf8_byte_end": 70943, "passage_sha256": "5031655202da8c65e87e24accbfa1855bd8e4f91fd7e3198ab5e776a1614340f", "reader_fragment": "p-68820-70533-5031655202da8c65" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-70533-72275:894e0ac59c412d053e7e24bcbf26b14b8baee130db4ba442b8501629bd678891", "character_start": 70533, "character_end": 72275, "utf8_byte_start": 70943, "utf8_byte_end": 72691, "passage_sha256": "894e0ac59c412d053e7e24bcbf26b14b8baee130db4ba442b8501629bd678891", "reader_fragment": "p-70533-72275-894e0ac59c412d05" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-72275-74067:2863cef3bbb2515ead895c48d5adea78c50d503a5c6f6b179a9959437f0308b1", "character_start": 72275, "character_end": 74067, "utf8_byte_start": 72691, "utf8_byte_end": 74489, "passage_sha256": "2863cef3bbb2515ead895c48d5adea78c50d503a5c6f6b179a9959437f0308b1", "reader_fragment": "p-72275-74067-2863cef3bbb2515e" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-74067-75850:59b12493d258dd68b22251404baf3e4bbdacb5d65191007e0e1a1f1262dac6d8", "character_start": 74067, "character_end": 75850, "utf8_byte_start": 74489, "utf8_byte_end": 76284, "passage_sha256": "59b12493d258dd68b22251404baf3e4bbdacb5d65191007e0e1a1f1262dac6d8", "reader_fragment": "p-74067-75850-59b12493d258dd68" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-75850-77596:73edb6754550183a155d79518d825a994170ca3d85b6e546e312b557162ba2ff", "character_start": 75850, "character_end": 77596, "utf8_byte_start": 76284, "utf8_byte_end": 78034, "passage_sha256": "73edb6754550183a155d79518d825a994170ca3d85b6e546e312b557162ba2ff", "reader_fragment": "p-75850-77596-73edb6754550183a" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-77596-79365:f9ea5cbcb4a1638aa62ea9efeabf677087c9032db978248a110073af48ce810b", "character_start": 77596, "character_end": 79365, "utf8_byte_start": 78034, "utf8_byte_end": 79811, "passage_sha256": "f9ea5cbcb4a1638aa62ea9efeabf677087c9032db978248a110073af48ce810b", "reader_fragment": "p-77596-79365-f9ea5cbcb4a1638a" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-79365-81135:daf6fbfd78e4bed48e0bfe8d623e67c48086bcbc467f1c0d1fa1482187f294e1", "character_start": 79365, "character_end": 81135, "utf8_byte_start": 79811, "utf8_byte_end": 81597, "passage_sha256": "daf6fbfd78e4bed48e0bfe8d623e67c48086bcbc467f1c0d1fa1482187f294e1", "reader_fragment": "p-79365-81135-daf6fbfd78e4bed4" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-81135-82911:3624b5c4ee00b970571da144898ce740f73f1d6d4fa183bf3414f389d164be66", "character_start": 81135, "character_end": 82911, "utf8_byte_start": 81597, "utf8_byte_end": 83381, "passage_sha256": "3624b5c4ee00b970571da144898ce740f73f1d6d4fa183bf3414f389d164be66", "reader_fragment": "p-81135-82911-3624b5c4ee00b970" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-82911-84701:c4a7c45b45c26b70b6a7210175d3894fa041f70c27d4016e6e70f767c8719bd5", "character_start": 82911, "character_end": 84701, "utf8_byte_start": 83381, "utf8_byte_end": 85195, "passage_sha256": "c4a7c45b45c26b70b6a7210175d3894fa041f70c27d4016e6e70f767c8719bd5", "reader_fragment": "p-82911-84701-c4a7c45b45c26b70" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-84701-86479:70c6e3679ca268d24c47b139092dfa8bb17544b4fbea26afd8c57f74540b9754", "character_start": 84701, "character_end": 86479, "utf8_byte_start": 85195, "utf8_byte_end": 86985, "passage_sha256": "70c6e3679ca268d24c47b139092dfa8bb17544b4fbea26afd8c57f74540b9754", "reader_fragment": "p-84701-86479-70c6e3679ca268d2" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-86479-88268:3616aabee85f1e6a50b7c3856d5bad659b410f0b85466ff94e6b550a8a35b424", "character_start": 86479, "character_end": 88268, "utf8_byte_start": 86985, "utf8_byte_end": 88782, "passage_sha256": "3616aabee85f1e6a50b7c3856d5bad659b410f0b85466ff94e6b550a8a35b424", "reader_fragment": "p-86479-88268-3616aabee85f1e6a" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-88268-90055:6bc4903afa2d5fc12ec2884206dbaae50130733ca8550d9d93ebc6a9aace5eaf", "character_start": 88268, "character_end": 90055, "utf8_byte_start": 88782, "utf8_byte_end": 90577, "passage_sha256": "6bc4903afa2d5fc12ec2884206dbaae50130733ca8550d9d93ebc6a9aace5eaf", "reader_fragment": "p-88268-90055-6bc4903afa2d5fc1" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-90055-91824:b7d7a48aa68546a920e5dd62eeb6a0407ccbb3fbdc88db01e24bbee59fed2e93", "character_start": 90055, "character_end": 91824, "utf8_byte_start": 90577, "utf8_byte_end": 92350, "passage_sha256": "b7d7a48aa68546a920e5dd62eeb6a0407ccbb3fbdc88db01e24bbee59fed2e93", "reader_fragment": "p-90055-91824-b7d7a48aa68546a9" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-91824-93624:199024a024ebfbe071468e117420e8c8c7ee9df5684c9c2ccc313c700fe15b83", "character_start": 91824, "character_end": 93624, "utf8_byte_start": 92350, "utf8_byte_end": 94154, "passage_sha256": "199024a024ebfbe071468e117420e8c8c7ee9df5684c9c2ccc313c700fe15b83", "reader_fragment": "p-91824-93624-199024a024ebfbe0" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-93624-95391:35ccdfe178da412ba56f28764e74b25adaa03026c2132965562e4c324032cac6", "character_start": 93624, "character_end": 95391, "utf8_byte_start": 94154, "utf8_byte_end": 95933, "passage_sha256": "35ccdfe178da412ba56f28764e74b25adaa03026c2132965562e4c324032cac6", "reader_fragment": "p-93624-95391-35ccdfe178da412b" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-95391-97180:039f8b2a8b3824280987bc2d7ebf7c32168e2040d6e88dcacdecfe7ea059ae12", "character_start": 95391, "character_end": 97180, "utf8_byte_start": 95933, "utf8_byte_end": 97736, "passage_sha256": "039f8b2a8b3824280987bc2d7ebf7c32168e2040d6e88dcacdecfe7ea059ae12", "reader_fragment": "p-95391-97180-039f8b2a8b382428" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-97180-98908:9ed5f35fcb7248969accb08ddc227608e82746c87e645c21777497d8e79eb533", "character_start": 97180, "character_end": 98908, "utf8_byte_start": 97736, "utf8_byte_end": 99470, "passage_sha256": "9ed5f35fcb7248969accb08ddc227608e82746c87e645c21777497d8e79eb533", "reader_fragment": "p-97180-98908-9ed5f35fcb724896" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-98908-100675:309530c30a3d7ed00feab5513394f60ca43de6b7915096fa10c90b2324c193af", "character_start": 98908, "character_end": 100675, "utf8_byte_start": 99470, "utf8_byte_end": 101253, "passage_sha256": "309530c30a3d7ed00feab5513394f60ca43de6b7915096fa10c90b2324c193af", "reader_fragment": "p-98908-100675-309530c30a3d7ed0" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-100675-102403:b91c653dfd058d6d44acacbd6dedab6abca7074819a1dce4371f8ce7c9fff55e", "character_start": 100675, "character_end": 102403, "utf8_byte_start": 101253, "utf8_byte_end": 102989, "passage_sha256": "b91c653dfd058d6d44acacbd6dedab6abca7074819a1dce4371f8ce7c9fff55e", "reader_fragment": "p-100675-102403-b91c653dfd058d6d" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-102403-104159:167553173bde2a921da449b4d126939ce110072437ae08eaa396b7e9ed17f8f8", "character_start": 102403, "character_end": 104159, "utf8_byte_start": 102989, "utf8_byte_end": 104757, "passage_sha256": "167553173bde2a921da449b4d126939ce110072437ae08eaa396b7e9ed17f8f8", "reader_fragment": "p-102403-104159-167553173bde2a92" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-104159-105954:d61637620095033f0c405697320782d7fa06b7e4350fedbd915d15948e365ece", "character_start": 104159, "character_end": 105954, "utf8_byte_start": 104757, "utf8_byte_end": 106560, "passage_sha256": "d61637620095033f0c405697320782d7fa06b7e4350fedbd915d15948e365ece", "reader_fragment": "p-104159-105954-d61637620095033f" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-105954-107692:dcffbdb3fc62133c55ee877694f89aabae523ea18ea9170c430b655a11e78cc8", "character_start": 105954, "character_end": 107692, "utf8_byte_start": 106560, "utf8_byte_end": 108306, "passage_sha256": "dcffbdb3fc62133c55ee877694f89aabae523ea18ea9170c430b655a11e78cc8", "reader_fragment": "p-105954-107692-dcffbdb3fc62133c" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-107692-109477:4800ff0f0e5701e4e2ce8f1ccc942cf95f5c933668729f9752580ad57eb155cf", "character_start": 107692, "character_end": 109477, "utf8_byte_start": 108306, "utf8_byte_end": 110103, "passage_sha256": "4800ff0f0e5701e4e2ce8f1ccc942cf95f5c933668729f9752580ad57eb155cf", "reader_fragment": "p-107692-109477-4800ff0f0e5701e4" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-109477-111238:078ea1e558ba976cc43a67e0f2c7fbd83460e6b3a7c348ddd8944c70f5b465da", "character_start": 109477, "character_end": 111238, "utf8_byte_start": 110103, "utf8_byte_end": 111874, "passage_sha256": "078ea1e558ba976cc43a67e0f2c7fbd83460e6b3a7c348ddd8944c70f5b465da", "reader_fragment": "p-109477-111238-078ea1e558ba976c" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-111238-112983:7ca3689aa73f99ed73949480b57ef2fd847d24810a4cd1f99358ee6d8c1bfd98", "character_start": 111238, "character_end": 112983, "utf8_byte_start": 111874, "utf8_byte_end": 113633, "passage_sha256": "7ca3689aa73f99ed73949480b57ef2fd847d24810a4cd1f99358ee6d8c1bfd98", "reader_fragment": "p-111238-112983-7ca3689aa73f99ed" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-112983-114715:b4d33d222b8bb42523f158b43c879c9679d353c64bf099fdfc3d1303c172c8ab", "character_start": 112983, "character_end": 114715, "utf8_byte_start": 113633, "utf8_byte_end": 115383, "passage_sha256": "b4d33d222b8bb42523f158b43c879c9679d353c64bf099fdfc3d1303c172c8ab", "reader_fragment": "p-112983-114715-b4d33d222b8bb425" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-114715-116437:5c55abc799aa1322ee6c039d112dd151ca1b237ce41598abe9645c0f51386f0b", "character_start": 114715, "character_end": 116437, "utf8_byte_start": 115383, "utf8_byte_end": 117121, "passage_sha256": "5c55abc799aa1322ee6c039d112dd151ca1b237ce41598abe9645c0f51386f0b", "reader_fragment": "p-114715-116437-5c55abc799aa1322" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-116437-118198:1ef712810a815e2dcf8190454e7a65cbc02742e87a44f6cefe6a040dc42a762f", "character_start": 116437, "character_end": 118198, "utf8_byte_start": 117121, "utf8_byte_end": 118898, "passage_sha256": "1ef712810a815e2dcf8190454e7a65cbc02742e87a44f6cefe6a040dc42a762f", "reader_fragment": "p-116437-118198-1ef712810a815e2d" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-118198-119933:95f876625051f4f67693efdef1686de3685ddc6256067c7841baa167bdaa1633", "character_start": 118198, "character_end": 119933, "utf8_byte_start": 118898, "utf8_byte_end": 120639, "passage_sha256": "95f876625051f4f67693efdef1686de3685ddc6256067c7841baa167bdaa1633", "reader_fragment": "p-118198-119933-95f876625051f4f6" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-119933-121710:c654d9442adb8b6ee77f4e1ad98e23d5114e4e9814e45f3a6861743ae2773d63", "character_start": 119933, "character_end": 121710, "utf8_byte_start": 120639, "utf8_byte_end": 122420, "passage_sha256": "c654d9442adb8b6ee77f4e1ad98e23d5114e4e9814e45f3a6861743ae2773d63", "reader_fragment": "p-119933-121710-c654d9442adb8b6e" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-121710-123463:79bc73f800d7b26cb241e0d604593c0b4d99fa055745ba3a1acaf1770e44af24", "character_start": 121710, "character_end": 123463, "utf8_byte_start": 122420, "utf8_byte_end": 124183, "passage_sha256": "79bc73f800d7b26cb241e0d604593c0b4d99fa055745ba3a1acaf1770e44af24", "reader_fragment": "p-121710-123463-79bc73f800d7b26c" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-123463-125248:36c870241ff0e382505b643623cd511275ddf79029513cf0a51cd08d65f3f0f4", "character_start": 123463, "character_end": 125248, "utf8_byte_start": 124183, "utf8_byte_end": 125976, "passage_sha256": "36c870241ff0e382505b643623cd511275ddf79029513cf0a51cd08d65f3f0f4", "reader_fragment": "p-123463-125248-36c870241ff0e382" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-125248-127008:8246d91c60679ba8df38a47757a6b7f88dbef31c1d2dafe1d96b43f1cd7460d2", "character_start": 125248, "character_end": 127008, "utf8_byte_start": 125976, "utf8_byte_end": 127746, "passage_sha256": "8246d91c60679ba8df38a47757a6b7f88dbef31c1d2dafe1d96b43f1cd7460d2", "reader_fragment": "p-125248-127008-8246d91c60679ba8" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-127008-128748:c9a9715a5359daf2c61a98f89e8a77944227c6136ad3de9f8f37d530e943cf5e", "character_start": 127008, "character_end": 128748, "utf8_byte_start": 127746, "utf8_byte_end": 129494, "passage_sha256": "c9a9715a5359daf2c61a98f89e8a77944227c6136ad3de9f8f37d530e943cf5e", "reader_fragment": "p-127008-128748-c9a9715a5359daf2" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-128748-130527:1a2ad66270e53fe6465179835ceb20b2e8c17173a275aa1abc83dda4cfe1c8d2", "character_start": 128748, "character_end": 130527, "utf8_byte_start": 129494, "utf8_byte_end": 131281, "passage_sha256": "1a2ad66270e53fe6465179835ceb20b2e8c17173a275aa1abc83dda4cfe1c8d2", "reader_fragment": "p-128748-130527-1a2ad66270e53fe6" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-130527-132284:856e948f078b17875d37e0ff55500b91619ed45eebd45e5c61ac084d50022d22", "character_start": 130527, "character_end": 132284, "utf8_byte_start": 131281, "utf8_byte_end": 133048, "passage_sha256": "856e948f078b17875d37e0ff55500b91619ed45eebd45e5c61ac084d50022d22", "reader_fragment": "p-130527-132284-856e948f078b1787" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-132284-134074:091a4a21c3979315772fabad9373b607e1d95da3544253a00a4f2aa091b03ad7", "character_start": 132284, "character_end": 134074, "utf8_byte_start": 133048, "utf8_byte_end": 134858, "passage_sha256": "091a4a21c3979315772fabad9373b607e1d95da3544253a00a4f2aa091b03ad7", "reader_fragment": "p-132284-134074-091a4a21c3979315" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-134074-135815:7c5f64c0447376e75e74768e70cbed543fdd80d6416c1732d26aa7b9471a2102", "character_start": 134074, "character_end": 135815, "utf8_byte_start": 134858, "utf8_byte_end": 136603, "passage_sha256": "7c5f64c0447376e75e74768e70cbed543fdd80d6416c1732d26aa7b9471a2102", "reader_fragment": "p-134074-135815-7c5f64c0447376e7" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-135815-137546:bfa68134240f96ce6e87762754c9239c681b4eef12e70a8b04f77a0bf20b65b9", "character_start": 135815, "character_end": 137546, "utf8_byte_start": 136603, "utf8_byte_end": 138338, "passage_sha256": "bfa68134240f96ce6e87762754c9239c681b4eef12e70a8b04f77a0bf20b65b9", "reader_fragment": "p-135815-137546-bfa68134240f96ce" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-137546-139279:ade12053d7008df0963d72998246bb0695c6b20d7fa6e9630689e095e1239df1", "character_start": 137546, "character_end": 139279, "utf8_byte_start": 138338, "utf8_byte_end": 140083, "passage_sha256": "ade12053d7008df0963d72998246bb0695c6b20d7fa6e9630689e095e1239df1", "reader_fragment": "p-137546-139279-ade12053d7008df0" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-139279-141042:4406aa12a2beaa7a2ec542402bf22320015c31992fceae230c068de6a69de054", "character_start": 139279, "character_end": 141042, "utf8_byte_start": 140083, "utf8_byte_end": 141862, "passage_sha256": "4406aa12a2beaa7a2ec542402bf22320015c31992fceae230c068de6a69de054", "reader_fragment": "p-139279-141042-4406aa12a2beaa7a" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-141042-142821:33a08b7cd8433d8724a90ee1002057008d21e050de74ed124ea9e8ccdb9be190", "character_start": 141042, "character_end": 142821, "utf8_byte_start": 141862, "utf8_byte_end": 143653, "passage_sha256": "33a08b7cd8433d8724a90ee1002057008d21e050de74ed124ea9e8ccdb9be190", "reader_fragment": "p-141042-142821-33a08b7cd8433d87" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-142821-144554:4ea0ed8c10616de204a5dbaadc645280e07c3eb39594000433b0be97f8fb8cfd", "character_start": 142821, "character_end": 144554, "utf8_byte_start": 143653, "utf8_byte_end": 145392, "passage_sha256": "4ea0ed8c10616de204a5dbaadc645280e07c3eb39594000433b0be97f8fb8cfd", "reader_fragment": "p-142821-144554-4ea0ed8c10616de2" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-144554-146281:1a87d8960c4d0f7d2f7ae9d518bbc629a5a9b2f79dcc2ac7f7520fbc6a1364fd", "character_start": 144554, "character_end": 146281, "utf8_byte_start": 145392, "utf8_byte_end": 147127, "passage_sha256": "1a87d8960c4d0f7d2f7ae9d518bbc629a5a9b2f79dcc2ac7f7520fbc6a1364fd", "reader_fragment": "p-144554-146281-1a87d8960c4d0f7d" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-146281-148040:1b77bea32ca3decc7ced245376b5185bd72153fe35c520223e03f39e3ef7854d", "character_start": 146281, "character_end": 148040, "utf8_byte_start": 147127, "utf8_byte_end": 148890, "passage_sha256": "1b77bea32ca3decc7ced245376b5185bd72153fe35c520223e03f39e3ef7854d", "reader_fragment": "p-146281-148040-1b77bea32ca3decc" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-148040-149840:e9434f2dbb3e903c0c9f3190d114bc26daa714146365d3e40a06d549d0da4cc0", "character_start": 148040, "character_end": 149840, "utf8_byte_start": 148890, "utf8_byte_end": 150694, "passage_sha256": "e9434f2dbb3e903c0c9f3190d114bc26daa714146365d3e40a06d549d0da4cc0", "reader_fragment": "p-148040-149840-e9434f2dbb3e903c" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-149840-151603:6f8872803360872fd6887cc651223423539c2d1de6ff19a33ba0add7713b999f", "character_start": 149840, "character_end": 151603, "utf8_byte_start": 150694, "utf8_byte_end": 152463, "passage_sha256": "6f8872803360872fd6887cc651223423539c2d1de6ff19a33ba0add7713b999f", "reader_fragment": "p-149840-151603-6f8872803360872f" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-151603-153368:66be82f9218f03221f764196ded4ce354d67cbd6538f180ed33a7aa175f726cd", "character_start": 151603, "character_end": 153368, "utf8_byte_start": 152463, "utf8_byte_end": 154236, "passage_sha256": "66be82f9218f03221f764196ded4ce354d67cbd6538f180ed33a7aa175f726cd", "reader_fragment": "p-151603-153368-66be82f9218f0322" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-153368-155148:1359329b9f64eb5cabef4dfb521323653a1b2facffe77ac9a60d8f80290fe261", "character_start": 153368, "character_end": 155148, "utf8_byte_start": 154236, "utf8_byte_end": 156024, "passage_sha256": "1359329b9f64eb5cabef4dfb521323653a1b2facffe77ac9a60d8f80290fe261", "reader_fragment": "p-153368-155148-1359329b9f64eb5c" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-155148-156890:21b0532f12e853ffa6eaf30ecdcb39bc321f8ccd75145eae43118c241f3d013e", "character_start": 155148, "character_end": 156890, "utf8_byte_start": 156024, "utf8_byte_end": 157770, "passage_sha256": "21b0532f12e853ffa6eaf30ecdcb39bc321f8ccd75145eae43118c241f3d013e", "reader_fragment": "p-155148-156890-21b0532f12e853ff" }, { "passage_id": "law:punjab-code-e845af7dd8b2beab:sha256:d0e15d3c2951cc1d4b6be27a4a3ac69027a668060d2aa1f2d800f0663b8f15b8:chars-156890-157329:6acb2267436c9d42b36217eefe5f97f3cfef2ca3ef6d54794e922d90238e5735", "character_start": 156890, "character_end": 157329, "utf8_byte_start": 157770, "utf8_byte_end": 158215, "passage_sha256": "6acb2267436c9d42b36217eefe5f97f3cfef2ca3ef6d54794e922d90238e5735", "reader_fragment": "p-156890-157329-6acb2267436c9d42" } ] }