[Sections 121 To 131, Evidence Act]
[Articles 4 to 14, Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984]
Matters protected from disclosure. Public officer sole judge of the public interest, but Court to decide whether the communication is made in official confidence. PLD 1960 Lah. 1189 Zahur Hussain.
Documents containing accusations against public servant which resulted in his discharge not matters of state and not privileged. (DB) PLD 1975 Lah. 17 Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Pakistan.
Withdrawal of document from circulation makes no difference. Document printed and published to about 2000 officials, not privileged. (SC) PLD 1961 SC 237. Sir Edward Snelson v. Judges of High Court.
Communication made in official confidence, privileged in public interest, duty of officials to claim privilege and Courts duty to warn against discloser. (SC) PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 333 Malik Feroz Khan Noon.
Husband and wife. Wife's answer to husband's inquiry about "love letter" written by third person to wife. Husband not permitted to disclose in prosecution of third person for adultery. PLD 1962 Lah. 558 Ali Nawaz Gardezi v. Lt-Col. Muhammad Yusaf.
Whether production of document would be injurious to public interest can be determined by head of department having custody of the document than the Court. Case law fully discussed. (DB) PLD 1962 Lah. 765. Ghulam Ali v. Abdul Hafiz.
Mere word of head of department not sufficient to uphold objection. (DB) PLD 1956 Lah. 300 Crown v. Abdul Ghani.
Departmental proceedings against a clerk. No privilege can be claimed by the Government. PLD 1955 Bal. 1 Crown v. Sultan Ahmed.
Statement made during Police Investigation of a case whether privileged apart from under section 162, Cr.P.C. Court to decide the question. PLD 1955 Lah. 39. Crown v. Abdul Ghani.
Evidence recorded in open Court. No privilege can be claimed about it. (DB) PLD 1954 Pesh. 29. Ajab Gul v. Crown.
Senior Superintendent of Police not entitled to claim privilege under section 123 of Evidence Act. He should refer the matter to the head of the department. When a witness claims privilege without valid grounds it may be presumed that disclosure if made would have gone against him. History-sheet concerns the affairs of the persons and not of the State. PLD 1950 Lah. 429 Muhammad Hayat v. Crown.
Privilege case-law fully discussed. Whether head of department can determine that the production of a document would be injurious to public interest, rather than a Court held, that if objection is taken in proper form by the head of department under section 123, Evidence Act to the production of evidence on the ground that it relates to the affairs of the State, it is conclusive. Also, "the decision ruling out such document is of the trial judge and it is the Judge who is in control of the trial and not the executive. "PLD 1969 Lah. 765. Ghulam Ali v. Abdul Hafeez.
If privilege is properly claimed no hostile inference under ill. (h) of section 114, Evidence Act can be made against him. When a claim of privilege is made it should be decided then and there by the Court. (FC) PLD 1951 FC 15. Muhammad Hayat v. Crown.
Confidential report on government officer are not documents relating to the affairs of the State. PLD 1954 Bal. 1 Feroz-ud-Din v. Crown.
Communication between witness and Advocate is not protested. PLD 1962 Lah. 558. Ali Nawaz v. Muhammad Yusaf.
Section 126, Evidence Act is not applicable where client consents to contents of documents being brought on record. (SC) PLD 1963 SC 51 Ali Nawaz v. Muhammad Yusaf.
Client and counsel. Privilege arising from relation of counsel and client is claimable even if the client is not concerned in the case. (FB) PLD 1963 Lah. 141. Muhammad Yusaf v. Ali Nawaz.