Mohd. Danish Zahid Husain vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Shegaon ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9671 Bom

                                 1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 486/2022

        Mohd. Danish Zahid Husain,
        aged about 23 years,
        Occ. Nil, R/o. Bazar Fail, Shegaon,
        Tah. Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana.

                                                  ... PETITIONER
                                                      (In Jail)

                              VERSUS

   1.   State of Maharashtra,
        through Police Station Officer,
        Police Station Shegaon City, Tah.
        Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana.

   2.   Mohammad Rafique Mohammad
        Anwar, aged about 63 years,
        Occ. Business, R/o. Athawadi
        Bazar, near Shetki Sanstha, Tah.
        Shegaon, Dist. Buldhana.
        (Amended as per Court's order
        dated 11.08.2022).



                                                  ... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
       Mr. A. Gawai, Advocate for petitioner.
       Mr. S.M. Ukey, APP for respondent No.1/State.
       Mr. Alok Daga. Advocate for respondent No.2/Intervener.
______________________________________________________________

                 CORAM                      : VINAY JOSHI, J.

                 DATE OF JUDGMENT           : 22.09.2022.


ORAL JUDGMENT :

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of respective parties.

3. The petitioner who is accused in Sessions Trial No. 39/2018

has challenged order dated 29.06.2022, by which the Trial Court has

permitted the prosecution to run a DVR (Digital Video Recorder)

containing CCTV footage of the incident. The petitioner has objected

on the ground that in absence of valid certificate in terms of Section

65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, the electronic evidence cannot be

admitted. The petitioner took me through the evidence of PW-8 from

whose possession, CCTV footage was seized. It is contended that the

CCTV footage was collected in pen drive which is secondary evidence.

However, the application moved by the prosecution discloses that the

prosecution has sought permission not to play pen drive but DVR that is

original hard-disk where CCTV footage was captured. The concerned

CCTV footage was recorded and stored in hard-disk a primary

document which the prosecution intended to display.

4. The other side would submit that since the prosecution

intendes to run DVR i.e. primary evidence, the certification under

Section 65-B(4) is not required. To substantiate said contention,

reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of

Anvar P. V. Vs. P. K. Basheer and others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun

Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorwantyal and others,

(2020) 7 SCC 1. In the later decision, it has been clarified that

requirement of certificate under Section 65-B(4) is unnecessary, if the

original document itself is produced. Here DVR i.e. hard-disk is sought

to be produced and therefore, certification is not required. In view of

that, the impugned order calls no interference. Hence, petition stands

dismissed. No costs.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Gohane JITENDRA BHARAT GOHANE Digitally signed by JITENDRA BHARAT GOHANE Date: 2022.09.26 10:32:58 +0530