Karnataka High Court
Sri D L Ganesh vs Sri Sampath Kumar M N on 15 March, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2009/2022
BETWEEN
SRI. D. L. GANESH,
S/O T. LINGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.203,
MARINE GOLD,
SANKALP CENTRAL PARK,
OLD JAWA FACTORY PREMISES,
YADAVGIRI, MYSURU,
KARNATAKA - 570 023.
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI.PRASAD K.R. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE]
AND
SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR M N.,
S/O NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT D. NO.442/10,
D. SUBBAIAH ROAD,
SRI. KRISHNA BAKERY BUILDING,
MYSURU,
KARNATAKA - 570 023.
... RESPONDENT
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.4459/2015 IN SO FAR AS ADMITTING
THE ELECTRONIC RECORDS AS EVIDENCE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Prasad.K.R.Rao, learned counsel appearing for
Sri.Venkatesh Somareddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.4459/2015, in particular, an order dated
27.12.2021. The order dated 27.12.2021 reads as follows:
"Counsel for complainant filed application
U/sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer
to permit him to producing the Electronics
documents i.e., cash book and balance sheet and
getting marked as exhibits in favour of the
complainant.
On the other had counsel for accused filed
objection and denied all the averments in the
application and contended that, the present
application does not disclose the requirements
laidown in Sec.65(B) (4) of Indian Evidence Act.
Perused the application, objection and order
sheet. The complainant is further examined and got
marked Ex.P5 to 7. In the meanwhile complainant
has produced some computerized documents along
with the application.
Perused the documents, in this regard
admissibility of electronic records the Hon'ble court
can be consider at the at the time of judgment.
Hence, Complainant is permitted to marking of
documents.
For further chief of PW.1
Sd/-
VI Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysore."
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
afore-quoted electronic evidence that is sought to be produced
before the Court is taken on record contrary to Section 65B(4) of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
said Act' for short). Section 65B(4) of the said Act reads as
follows:
"65B(4.) In any proceedings where it is
desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of
this section, a certificate doing any of the following
things, that is to say, --
(a) identifying the electronic record
containing the statement and describing the
manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device
involved in the production of that electronic record
as may be appropriate for the purpose of
showing that the electronic record was
produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to
which the conditions mentioned in sub-section
(2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person
occupying a responsible official position in
relation to the operation of the relevant device
or the management of the relevant activities
(whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any
matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes
of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a
matter to be stated to the best of the
knowledge and belief of the person stating it."
The afore-quoted provision mandates that when electronic
record is to be produced, it should be signed by a person
occupying a responsible position and a certificate to that effect
be produced before the court.
4. It is not in dispute that the complainant wanted to
produce such electronic evidence before the Court. The Court
has accepted the document holding that the electronic evidence
in terms of Section 65B(4) of the said Act will be considered at a
later stage. The finding rendered is erroneous and contrary to
the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ARJUN
PANDITRAO KHOTKAR V. KAILASH KUSHANRAO
GORANTYAL1, wherein the Apex Court has delineated
admissibility of electronic evidence without identification and
accuracy of it, which would necessarily be on a certificate issued
(2020) 7 SCC 1
by the competent person in whose custody the said electronic
evidence was.
5. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court
and the statute, the trial Court is restrained from marking those
electronic records without complying with Section 65B(4) of the
said Act, which would necessitate a certificate of production of
those records in tune with Section 65B(4) of the said Act.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Petition is disposed.
ii. The order dated 27.12.2021 passed in
C.C.No.4459/2015 is modified to the aforesaid
extent.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SJK
