Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The said material witness during cross-examination by the counsel for the accused appellant- Brijesh Kumar Meena has further stated that Lalit was not present at the time of verification of the demand and the tape of conversation was not sealed pack. He further stated that there is no name of Brijesh Meena in the transcript. He has categorically stated that he has not given any certificate as required under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in relation to the transcript (Ex.P30).

46. As far as the transcript is concerned, firstly; the said transcript is not supported by the certificate as required under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and secondly; on going through the transcript also, the Court finds nothing substantial as regards the demand alleged to have been made by the appellants. As regards the complaint made by Manisha, the recovery of the same could not be proved by the prosecution evidence that the same was in the well knowledge of the accused appellant Brijesh Kumar Meena because as per the prosecution evidence the said complaint was found to be lying on the table where anyone can place it.

47. The conviction of the accused appellants is based on the transcript, is not sustainable for the reason that the said transcript is not supported by the certificate as required under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Merely saying that the said transcript is system generated report and need no signatures and the call details are admissible in evidence, is not sufficient in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. [2025:RJ-JP:6205] (45 of 55) [CRLAS-2324/2019] Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., reported as (2020) 7 SCC 1 and Ravinder Singh @ Kaku (supra).