Allahabad High Court
Ashish Kumar Yadav vs Priti Yadav on 10 May, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85006
Court No. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2660 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- Priti Yadav
Counsel for Petitioner :- I. N. Singh,Rahul Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Ganesh Mani
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27th February, 2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court whereby his miscellaneous application no. 30 C to run compact disc in laptop an electronic device, has been rejected. He is also aggrieved by the another order passed on the same date whereby his application to take on record the print out of the SMS between opposite party and the Rohit Yadav has been rejected.
Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Tyagi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 4 SCC 490, wherein the Court had directed that whatever electronic evidence was available in CD must be run and reduced in writing in presence of accused to avoid any tampering in the electronic device in future.
Upon perusal of the order impugned, I find that application to run CD on Laptop for this purpose has been rejected on the ground that Section 65-A read with Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not provie for open viewing of the compact disc on laptop.
In the considered view of the Court once electronic evidence has been made admissible under Section 65- A read with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by amending Act 2000, it is necessary for both the parties to the proceedings to view electronic evidence upon any electronic device on which it can be run, though in presence of Presiding Judge and may be in camera proceeding. The Court, therefore, is required that once electronic evidence is made viewable in camera the content thereof is also reduced in writing with signatures of the parties as to what they have viewed in presence of Presiding Judge so as to avoid any chance of tampering of electronic evidence. I do not see any difficulty for a court of law in not viewing the content contained in any digital device and reducing the same in writing. Interpretation of section does not bar for CD to be run on laptop as has been held by trial court. Even in case of evidence being recorded through video conferencing rules framed required that such evidence should also be reduced in writing and should be part of the record like in any other evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure.
In view of above, therefore, I am not able to sustain the order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court rejecting miscellaneous application no. 30C and is same is accordingly is hereby set aside.
In so far as the application moved by petitioner for taking print out of SMS on record, the family court was not justified in rejecting the same on the ground that petitioner may lead this evidence in rebuttal later on. The law is well established that the court can take evidence on record at any stage of the proceeding. Since cross examination has yet not started, the Court would have take this evidence on record.
In view of above, therefore, the order rejecting second application bearing paper no. 31 C is also hereby set aside.
The matter is remitted to the Principal Judge , Family Court, Kanpur Nagar to take decision afresh upon application paper no. 30C and 31-C in view of observations made hereinabove, however, I may clarify herein that correctness of the electronic evidence is always subject to lab report for which the Court is free to pass appropriate orders.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Sanjeev
