Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. P.W.6, Investigating Officer has stated about investigation done by him and also about filing of charge sheet. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that P.W.1 appeared before him on 04.05.2011 and informed about demand of bribe and he has not registered FIR on that day and he gave him a voice recorder by making entry in SHD and SHD is not produced. He has admitted that there is no entry of date and time in the voice recorder to show that recording was made on a particular day. He has stated that he has not seized voice recorder. He has admitted that in conversation marked at Ex.P.13 on 09.05.2011 there is no demand of bribe by accused. He has admitted that on the date of trap on 10.05.2011 at 6.15 p.m. when complainant, accused and shadow witness came out of police station, complainant has not flashed any signal and they proceeded towards Mysuru road and after coming back from tea stall they entered police station and thereafter, after 5 minutes signal was given. He has stated that he has not seen accused receiving amount and keeping it in his pant pocket and has stated that when they entered chamber of accused after receiving signal from complainant, video-graphing of the trap proceedings was started and after seeing accused throwing some item from window, he immediately went to that spot within one minute and found only one currency note of Rs.1,000/-. He has stated that even on personal body search of accused, remaining four tainted notes were not found and admitted that body search of complainant and accused is not noted in trap mahazar. He has stated that he has not prepared any rough sketch to show that behind seat of accused in his chamber, there is a window and not prepared a sketch showing location of window and denied that there is no such window. He has stated that for preparing spot sketch he has shown spot to the Engineer and P.W1 and 2 were not present at that time. He has admitted that in Ex.P.9 transcription of visuals, complainant giving tainted notes to accused and keeping notes in pant pocket is not seen. He has stated that in respect of call details and CDs and transcriptions, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is not taken. He has stated that he has not made any separate investigation in respect of offence under Section 201 of I.P.C.

23. Therefore, regarding demand of bribe by accused prior to giving of complaint, prosecution is relying on M.O.-13 CD containing conversation dated 05.05.2011 and its transcription at Ex.P.8. Regarding demand subsequent to giving of complaint, prosecution is relying on M.O.-12 CD containing recordings in button camera and voice recorder at the time of trap and its transcriptions at Ex.P.9. In respect of these transcriptions and CDs, as admitted by P.W.6, no certificate as required under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is produced. M.O. 12 and 13 CDs are stated to have been played before P.W.7 higher officer of accused and he is stated to have identified the voice and visual of accused and then gave report as per Ex.P.16. P.W.7 has admitted in his cross-examination that he is not an expert in voice identification and has not undergone any special training. Therefore identification of voice by P.W.7 will not prove that voice heard in M.O. 12 and 13 are that of accused. These CDs were not sent for scientific investigation by an expert. The voice recorder from which M.O.13 was made and button camera and voice recorder which is source for M.O.-12 CD are not seized in this case. Since original devise from which these recordings were made is not available before the court and its copies are only produced as per MOs 12 and 13 and its transcriptions at Ex.P.8 and 9, without certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act these CDs and transcriptions are not admissible in evidence.

24. Learned counsel for accused has relied on the decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5695 (Anvar P.V -Vs- P.K.Basheer and others = (2014) 10 SCC 473. In this decision Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that "when the secondary evidence of the electronic records are produced before the Court, they cannot be admitted in evidence, unless the secondary evidence is accompanied by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act". As original device in which recordings are made are not produced before the court and the CDs and the transcriptions which are produced are not supported by certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, these documents at Ex.P.8, P.9 and P.13 and M.Os.12 and 13 are not admissible in evidence and will not help the prosecution.