The Allahabad High Court has held that Trial Court has powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to permit the evidence to be filed at a later stage subject to no serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused-revisionist.

The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh in view of the above, rejected the revision petition filed under Section 397 readwith Section 401 CrPC.

Brief Facts of the Case

Sri Shyam Sundar Prasad was serving as the bank manager of Punjab national bank, he allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 80,000/- from the complainant Kaleem Ahmad for defreezing his account as
he had sanctioned the cash credit limit of Rs 8 lakh, because of this Kaleem Ahmad registered a complaint.

After this there was a verification of the authenticity of the complaint where both of them met, after meeting Kaleem asked Shyam to reduce the bribe amount to which he agreed and reduced it to Rs
50,000/- by cheque, this was recorded and transferred into a blank compact disc. A trap was laid and Shyam was caught red-handed with a tainted bribe check using phenolphthalein powder. The conversation between the accused revisionist and the complainant was recorded during the transaction of the bribe cheque and the same was transferred into another blank compact disk. After this a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 against the accused revisionist in2014, however CBI did not file the certificate under section 65-B in proper format.

After all of this in 2021 an application under section 311 CrPC was filed to bring the two compact disks used earlier to record the proofs of bribery against Shyam on record under section 65-B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well as to call all the witnesses to further prove the authenticity of those compact disks. This application was allowed by the special judge of the C.B.I. Court, this led Shyam to move to the high court and he challenged the order with an instant revision plea, he put forward the argument that there was no reason to file the certificates (compact disks) as the charge sheet Was filed in the year 2014 but the recordings are of the year 2021. He primarily argued that the certificates are being issued by the C.B.I. officers themselves at this time and it would be highly prejudicial of the court to trial him at this moment.

High Court's Observation

The Court relied on the judgment of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Versus Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others, in this judgment it was held by the court that the certificates under section 65-B of the
Indian Evidence Act can be produced at any stage of the trial, if the same was not produced along with electronic record or not produced in the court with the chargesheet.

The court also took note of the judgment of Anvar P.V. Versus P.K.Basheer, in which the supreme court held that the powers of section 311 Cr.P.C. are to be used for just and fair decision in the case.
It is held that the trial is still on and therefore, for a just and fair decision in the trial, the certificates issued under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act are to be taken on record.

Taking in consideration these two judgements the high court observed that for admissibility of an electronic record/document, section 65-B(4) is mandatory for recording it in evidence. When the
electronic record is produced in evidence without proper certificate, trial court must summon the person/persons referred in Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be given by such person/persons in appropriate cases, the trial court depending on the facts and circumstances of the case 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 can allow the prosecution to produce the certificates under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act at later point of time and same would also be the case in respect of an accused who desires to produce the requisite certificates as part of his defense.

Now after this when we take in consideration of the facts in the given case then, the court observed that the two compact disks have already been supplied to Shyam and only the certificates under
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been allowed to be produced, furthermore the court dismissed the instant revision plea stating that in no manner there was prejudice shown by tribunal
court in producing the compact disks in aspect of electronic evidence.

Case Title: Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow

Case Details: CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 588 of 2022

Coram: Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh

Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :