Talking to Business Recorder, a criminal law expert, Sharafat A. Chaudhry stated that the law of evidence attempts to ascertain the relevancy of statements and determines the liability in the matter. He said that Article 53 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 provides for what evidence is required when statements form a part of a conversation, document, book or a series of letters are submitted.
Chaudhry further stated that under such provision of the law it is necessary for the court to consider the circumstances under which such statements were made so as to fully understand the context/nature of statements.
During a number of hearings of the case, the apex court has repeatedly observed that proving the money trail in the matter will ascertain the truth, but the larger bench observed that no party has made its case on this particular point. In the context of Article 122 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa has observed during the proceedings of the case that if someone accuses anybody of travelling without a ticket, then the traveller is bound to prove that he has a ticket and is travelling legally.
Chaudhry clarified that Article 122 is about the burden of proof for example when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed during the proceedings in the Panama papers case that the onus of providing proof of the money trail of Mayfair apartments in London lies with the Sharif family.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2017