Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

43. In respect of the electronic evidence, it is the instrument, in which the recordings were originally recorded, is the primary evidence and any other evidence, in the form of CD, to which the recordings was transmitted, is the secondary evidence. So, evidence produced before this court regarding the recordings in the voice recorder in the form of CD and transcription of the recording are the secondary evidence and primary evidence is the voice recorder in which the recording was actually made and same has not been produced before this court. Moreover, secondary evidence produced before this court is also not accompanied by the certificate, as required Under Sec.65-B of the Indian evidence Act. The learned counsel for the accused, by relaying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (10) SCC 473 (Anwar P. B Vs P.K. Basheer and others) and AIR 2016 Supreme Court 5389 (Harpal Singh alias Chhota V/s State of Punjab), has vehemently argued that when the primary evidence of the recordings are not produced and only the secondary evidence is produced, which is not accompanied by the certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, same cannot be accepted. In the above referred decisions, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law relating to appreciation of the electronic evidence. As per the ratio laid down in the above decision, in respect of any electronic evidence, if the primary evidence has not been produced before the court and only the secondary evidence is produced, it shall be accompanied by a certificate, which is required under Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding the genuineness of the same. It was further held in the above decisions that, if the secondary evidence is not accompanied by the certificate, as required under Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, such a secondary evidence of the electronic recordings cannot be admitted in evidence.

44. So, now it is well established principle of law that in case of electronic recordings or evidence, primary evidence has to be produced before the court. If the primary evidence is not produced before the court and only the secondary evidence is produced and said secondary evidence is not accompanied by a certificate under Sec. 65- B of the Indian evidence Act, in respect of the genuineness of the secondary evidence, same cannot be admitted. In the case on hand, though the prosecution has produced only the secondary evidence in respect of the recordings in the voice recorder in the form of CD and transcription of the recordings, it is not accompanied by a certificate under Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. According to me, on this score only, this court has to discard the evidence produced by the prosecution in the form of CD containing the recordings in the voice recorder, in order to prove the demand of bribe, before lodging the complaint. Hence M.O.4 CD and Ex.P.5 transcription of the recordings in the voice recorder deserves no consideration by this court.

45. All these reasoning of this court are also applicable for the CD produced as per M.O.12 in respect of the recordings made in the button camera and voice recorder, which was given to the complainant at the time of pre-trap proceedings to record the trap proceedings. Even though the recordings in the button camera and voice recorder was given to the complainant at the time of trap, same has not been produced before the court. Those recordings were also transmitted into a CD and produced before the court as M.O.12 and recordings in the button camera and voice recorder was also transcribed as per Ex.P.6. Even that CD is not accompanied by the certificate under Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, in view of the above referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court cannot accept the said CD and transcription of the recordings.

46. Even if this court ignores the electronic evidence produced by the prosecution in the form of CD and the transcription of the recordings for want of certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, still there is evidence of the complainant, regarding demand of bribe made by the accused before lodging the complaint. For appreciating the evidence of the complainant in this regard, it is necessary to consider some of the admitted and undisputed facts and also the defence of the accused, which was introduced by him while he giving the explanation before the Lokayuktha Police immediately after the trap and the defence, which the accused has taken during the course of trial before this court.