- In Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow, the Allahabad High Court held that the trial Court is empowered to permit the prosecution to produce certificates u/s 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act at a later point during the trial.
- A Single Bench consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh made the above mentioned observations while uploading the order of the trial Court allowing the application filed by the prosecution u/s 311 CrPC to put on record two certificates u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, as they were not filed in property form during the filing of the charge sheet.
- Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act aims to set apart secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer.
- In this case, the revisionist/accused was serving as the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank where he allegedly demanded a bribe of INR 80,000/- from the complainant for defreezing the account. A complaint was, thus, made by the accused.
- On 25.04.2014, during the verification of the complaint, the complainant requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount to INR 50,000/- and the same was agreed upon by the latter.
- This conversation was recorded in a CD and was a trap laid to catch the accused revisionist red-handed.
- Subsequently, the C.B.I. filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable u/s 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused in 2014. However, the certificate under section 65-B (4) was not filed by the CBI in a proper format.
- Presently, in 2021 an application was filed u/s 311 CrPC to bring on record two certificates regarding the CDs (containing the conversation b/w the accused and the complainant) u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act, and to recall the witnesses to prove those certificates.
- The Court allowed this application and the aggrieved accused approached the HC with an instant revision plea challenging this order.
- The Court took reliance on the Supreme Court judgement in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., wherein it was held that Section 65-B (4) of the Act does not mention the stage of furnishing the certificate.
- Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the two CSs have already been supplied to the revisionist and only certificates under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act have been allowed to be produced to prove.
- The Court thus held that by allowing the application u/s 311 of CrPC, the revisionist was not prejudiced in any manner whatsoever, by producing the certificates in respect of the electronic evidence and accordingly, the Court dismissed the instant revision plea.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha Nautiyal?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
