Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Transcript certificate in Cc No. 02/16 Cbi vs . Naresh Kumar Arya & Anr. Page No. 1 Of 63 on 13 April, 2017Matching Fragments
6.32. Section 65B (4) also talks about identification of electronic record. This implies the brand name of the device which includes its number "which is unique number given by the manufacturer to that particular device" etc. 6.33. It is admitted case of the prosecution that CDs Q-2 and Q-3 were prepared from the DVR and transcripts were prepared from these CDs. Q-1 is the original DVR produced before the court and same is admissible in evidence.
6.34. The other contention raised on behalf of Ld. counsel for A- 1 is that even transcript prepared from CD should have certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and in the CC No. 02/16 CBI Vs. Naresh Kumar Arya & Anr. Page No. 49 of 63 absence of that same cannot be considered and looked into by the court. In support of his submission, Ld. counsel has relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in Girwar Singh & others (supra). The fact of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of this case. In this case, transcription-cum-voice identification memo was made on a computer and not by hand by the I.O. It was under these circumstances, the court has observed that certificate under Section 65-B was required to be filed along with transcript. But in the instant case, the transcription from CDs Q-2 and Q-3 were prepared by IO by hand after hearing the contents of the CDs. In view of this reasons, I do not agree with the contention raised by Ld. counsel that even transcript should have accompanied certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in the present case. It is further relevant to discuss here the contention raised by Ld. counsel for A-2 that there appears to be tempering in the transcript and deliberately certain files have been left which causes serious doubt regarding the credibility of these transcripts. Ld. counsel has also submitted that complainant in his statement has admitted that there is noise of traffic sounds of unknown persons in CDs Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 when played before the court. It has been stated that in view of Ram Singh & others Vs. Col. Ram Singh (Manu/SC/0176/1985) the CDs cannot be taken into consideration.