Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The Apex Court in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 1SCC 289 has observed in the context of Section 319 Cr.P.C. that the trial is concluded only on passing a Judgment of conviction and sentence and till then, the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised.

22. Likewise, in the case of State of Karnataka vs. T. Nasseer alias Nasir & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1447, similar facts arose wherein electronic evidence had been placed on record by the Prosecution but it was not supported with the Certificate under Section 65B IEA. The Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Prosecution asserting that though the primary electronic documents were already on record, but by way of abundant caution, sought to place the Certificate under Section 65B of the IEA, on record. These electronic documents were sent to CFSL for examination and the Report was thereafter, placed on record. The Report was sought to be proved by recording of the Statement of the Government Examinator Computer Forensic Division, CFSL, who appeared as a Prosecution witness. At this stage, an objection was taken by the Accused that the Report cannot be taken in evidence in the absence of Certificate under Section 65B of IEA. Immediately thereafter, the said Certificate was sought to be brought on record under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and also to recall the expert witness for proving the Certificate in evidence. The Apex Court made a reference to Union of India vs. Ravindra V. Desai, (2018) 16 SCC 273 wherein it was emphasised that non-production of a Certificate under Section 65B of IEA on earlier occasion, is a curable defect. The reference was also made to Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra) wherein it was observed that so long as the hearing in a trial is not over, the requisite Certificate can be directed to be produced at any stage so that the information contained in electronic record Form can then be admitted and relied upon in evidence.