9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al case does not mean that it should be fair to one of the parties. Rather, the object is that no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished. A certificate under Section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by the prosecution is not an evidence which has been created now. It is meeting the requirement of law to prove a report on record. By permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Act at this stage will not result in any irreversible prejudice to the accused. The accused will have full opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution. This is the purpose for which Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is there. The object of the Code is to arrive at truth. However, the power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to subserve the cause of justice and public interest - In the case in hand, this exercise of power is required to uphold the truth, as no prejudice as such is going to be caused to the accused. The orders passed by the courts below are set aside - Appeal allowed. - Vikram Nath And Rajesh Bindal, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Aman Panwar, AAG, Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR For the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 65-B of the Act. Though, according to the prosecution, the original devices being already on record (as a primary evidence), there was no requirement of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Act. Still, as a matter of abundant caution, a certificate under Section 65-B of the Act was obtained and when M. Krishna (PW-189) was further examined in chief on 27.04.2017, a certificate under Section 65-B of the Act was sought to be produced. Objection was raised by the counsel for the accused. Vide order dated 20.06.2017, the Trial Court opined that the certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Act produced on 27.04.2017 was not admissible in evidence. Thereafter an application was filed in the court to allow the prosecution to recall M. Krishna (PW-189) and to produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act in evidence. The application was rejected by the Trial Court holding the same to be delayed. The order of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge before this Court. 4. Mr. Aman Panwar, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellant-State, in his brief argument submitted that in the case in hand, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... country, as in such terror attacks it is only the innocents who suffer. The investigation had to be scientific. At the instance of the accused no.3, electronic devices such as one Laptop, one external Hard Disc, 3 Pen Drives, 5 floppies, 13 CDs, 6 SIM cards, 3 mobile phones, one memory card and 2 digital cameras etc. were recovered and seized. These were sent for examination to the CFSL, Hyderabad. Report was received on 29.11.2010. The same was submitted before the Trial Court on 16.10.2012 and sought to be proved at the time of recording of statement, M. Krishna, Assistant Government Examiner, Computer Forensic Division, CFSL, appeared as PW-189. The accused vide application dated 06.03.2017 objected to taking the report dated 29.11.2010 in evidence in the absence of a certificate under Section 65- B of the Act. Immediately, thereafter a certificate dated 27.04.2017 was got issued under Section 65-B of the Act and an application was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to recall M. Krishna (PW-189) and to produce the aforesaid certificate in evidence. The trial was still pending. Learned Trial Court without appreciating the legal position in this regard had dismissed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this purpose. However, Section 65-B(1) clearly differentiates between the original document which would be the original electronic record contained in the computer in which the original information is first stored and the computer output containing such information, which then may be treated as evidence of the contents of the original document. All this necessarily shows that Section 65-B differentiates between the original information contained in the computer itself and copies made therefrom the former being primary evidence, and the latter being secondary evidence. (Emphasis added) 10. In State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, 2019(7) SCC 515, this Court after referring to the earlier judgment in Anwar a case (supra) held that the non-production of the Certificate under Section 65B of the Act is a curable defect. Relevant paragraph 16 thereof is extracted below: 16. The same view has been reiterated by a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Ravindra V. Desai, (2018) 16 SCC 273. The Court emphasised that non-production of a certificate under Section 65-B on an earlier occasion is a curable defect. The Court relied upon the ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application to resummon M. Krishna (PW-189) and produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 13. It was only vide order dated 07.04.2017 that the report prepared on the basis of electronic devices was refused to be taken on record by the Trial Court. The original electronic devices had already been produced in evidence and marked as MOs. It was during the examination in chief of M. Krishna (PW-189) that the report of CFSL dated 29.11.2010 was sought to be exhibited. However, the Trial Court vide order dated 07.04.2017 declined to take the same on record in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Act. When the aforesaid witness was further examined in chief on 27.04.2017, the report under Section 65B was produced to which objection was raised by the counsel of the defence and vide order dated 20.06.2017 the Trial Court declined to take the certificate, issued under Section 65B of the Act, on record. It was thereafter that an application was filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling M. Krishna (PW-189) and produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act on record. The same was rejected by the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
