Cbi vs . Sh. Ashutosh Verma & Ors. Page 1 Of 160 on 1 April, 2021
It is submitted that CBI has not taken
any steps before this court to compel the source produce the
original recording device or the Certificate u/s 65 B of the Evidence
Act. CBI cannot submit that the same is privileged information u/s
125 of Evidence Act. It is submitted that Section 65 B of Evidence
Act is mandatory and dictate the admissibility of secondary
electronic evidence, being special provisions applying over the
CBI vs. Sh. Ashutosh Verma & Ors. Page 103 of 160
general law, irrespective of purported privilege. Reliance is placed
on Public Prosecutor vs. M.N. Govindaraja Mudaliar & Ors.,
AIR 1954 Madras 1023. In this case, the IO had seized certain
account books but did not give the name of the person from whom
these books were seized and responded that these were got from
the informant. When the name of informant was asked, an
objection was taken u/s 125 of the Evidence Act that the witness
be not compelled to disclose the name of the informant. The Trial
Court held that the witness was not privileged from disclosing this
information and matter was challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court. It was held that when a Magistrate or a police official gets
any information as to the commission of any offence, whence he
got such an information is prevented from being given. The
information as to the commission of the offence has already been
given to the police official and if in consequence of that information
given, he starts investigation and in the course of that
investigation, he seizes the account books and produces them
before the court, it cannot be said that the person from whom he
seized the account books is the person whose name is prohibited
u/s 125 of the Act from being given. In certain cases, it may be that
the person from whom the account books are seized may be the
informant. But what the section contemplates is only the
prohibition of the source from whom the Magistrate or the police
officer got information as to the commission of the offence and not
as to the custody of any documents or other material objects, that
CBI vs. Sh. Ashutosh Verma & Ors. Page 104 of 160
might have been seized and that might be tendered in evidence in
support of the commission of the offence.