Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 311 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.65B – A serial bomb blasts took place – Certain electronic devices were seized – Trial Court held electronic devices inadmissible in evidence – Thereafter, an application was filed in the court to allow the prosecution to recall PW-189 and to produce the certificate u/s. 65B of the Act in evidence – Application rejected by the Trial Court holding same to be delayed – High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court – Propriety:
Held: The courts below had gone on a wrong premise to opine that there was delay of six years in producing the certificate whereas there was none – The matter was still pending when the application to resummon PW189 and produce the certificate u/s. 65B of the Act was filed u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C. – In fact, report received from CFSL on the basis of the contents of electronic devices dated 29.11.2010 was already placed before the Trial Court on 16.10.2012 – 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 in absence of certificate issued u/s. 65B – It was during the examination in chief of PW-189 that the report of CFSL dated 29.11.2010 was sought to be exhibited – When the aforesaid witness was further examined in chief on 27.04.2017, the report u/s. 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 u/s. 65B of the Act, on record – It was thereafter that an application was filed u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-189 and produce the certificate u/s. 65B of the Act on record – The same was rejected by the Trial Court – From the aforesaid facts, it cannot be inferred that there was delay of six years in producing the certificate – A certificate u/s. 65B 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 u/s. 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. [Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473: [2014] 11 SCR 399; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: [2020] 7 SCR 180; State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, 2019 (7) SCC 515: [2019] 8 SCR 713 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.