CASE TITLE:
Shyam Sunder Prasad Vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow
DATE OF ORDER:
06TH JUNE,2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Shyam Sunder Prasad
Respondent: Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Indian Evidence Act 1872; The Code of Civil Procedure 1973
SUBJECT
According to the Allahabad High Court, the trial court has the authority to allow the prosecution to produce the certificates under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act at a later time during the trial. The Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh made this observation while upholding the trial court's order allowing the prosecution's application under section 311 CrPC to bring on record two certificates under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 because they were not filed in property form during the filming of the charge sheet.
BRIEF FACTS
- The Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank was Shyam Sunder Prasad (Accused/Revisionist). He allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 80,000/- from the complainant in order to defrost the account.
- The complainant filed a complaint in this regard. Now, during the complaint's verification, on April 25, 2014, when the complainant met with the accused revisionist and asked him to reduce the bribe amount, he agreed to accept the bribe of Rs. 50,000/- by cheque. This conversation was taped and burned to a blank Compact Disc.
- The accused revisionist was caught red-handed with a tainted bribe cheque after a trap was set. The conversation between the accused revisionist and the complainant was recorded during the bribe cheque transaction and transferred into a compact disk.
- In 2014, the C.B.I. filed a charge sheet against the accused revisionist for offences punishable under sections 7 & 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. CBI, on the other hand, did not file the certificate required by section 65-B (4) in the proper format.
- In 2021, an application was filed under Section 311 CrPC to bring two certificates (in connection with Compact Discs containing the conversation between the complainant and the accused) on record under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as well as to recall the witnesses to prove those certificates.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court granted the application, and the accused/revisionist, who was dissatisfied with the order, filed the current revision petition in the High Court, challenging the order of the Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No. 6, Lucknow.
- The accused claimed that no reason was given for filing certificates late, despite the fact that the charge sheet was filed in 2014, but the certificates are from 2021. It was primarily argued that accepting the certificates and allowing the application to recall the witnesses at this late stage, when they were issued by C.B.I. officers, would be highly prejudicial to the accused's trial.
CONCLUSION
- The Court began by relying on the decision in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others (2020) 7 SCC 1.
- The High Court held that when an electronic record is produced in evidence without a proper certificate, the trial court must summon the person(s) referred to in Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and require that such certificate be provided by such person(s) in appropriate cases, the trial court may exercise its discretion under section 91 or section 311 Cr.P.C. or Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the case may be, and allow the prosecution to produce the certificates under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act at a later point in time, and the same would be the case in respect of an accused who desires to produce the requisite certificates as part of his defence.
- The Court noted that the two Compact Discs had already been provided to the accused-revisionist and that only certificates under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act were permitted to be produced in order to prove and by allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C..
- The Court also stated that by producing the certificates for the electronic evidence, the Court dismissed the instant revision plea.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
