Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.21 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014
In Court on its own Motion Vs
State & Ors reported as 151(2008) DLT 695 (DB) (R.K.Anand's case), the
Hon'ble High Court cautioned against use of digital recording, in the
absence of original chip or the Micro Chip. There can be no dispute
with the dictum so laid down. Drawing from various academic articles
and views of scholar, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi concluded as
follows:
Jagdeo Singh And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 1980
7.4 Relying upon Anvar P.V.'s case (supra), Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in Jagdeo Singh Vs State (Manu/DE/0376/2015) held as under:
"In other words, the law is now abundantly clear. If there is
no certificate accompanying electronic evidence in terms of
Section 65B i.e., such evidence is "inadmissible". This
evidence is inadmissible because it does not satisfy the
requirement of the law under Section 65B EA. Such evidence
cannot be looked into. Consequently, as far as the present
case is concerned, the Court is satisfied that the intercepted
telephone calls presented in the form of CDs before the trial
court which were then examined by the FSL expert do not
satisfy the requirement of Section 65B EA. The net result is
that the electronic evidence in this case in the form of the
intercepted conversation and the CDRs cannot be looked
into by the Court for any purpose whatsoever. "
Court On Its Own Motion vs State And Others on 21 August, 2008
In Court on its own Motion Vs
State & Ors reported as 151(2008) DLT 695 (DB) (R.K.Anand's case), the
Hon'ble High Court cautioned against use of digital recording, in the
absence of original chip or the Micro Chip. There can be no dispute
with the dictum so laid down. Drawing from various academic articles
and views of scholar, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi concluded as
follows:
Vikas Shukla vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. on 20 November, 2014
In Ankur Chawla 's case (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi discharged the accused persons holding, that the audiovideo CDs
in question, were clearly inadmissible in evidence and were not
sufficient to put accused to trial for offence punishable u/sec.12 of the
PC Act r/w/sec.120B of IPC. Further, use of sting operation has not
gone down well with the superior courts.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
10 Ld. Counsel has rightly pointed out that there is no
evidence of any motive or promise by the accused to show any favour or
FIR No. 702/2007 Page 18/19
disfavour to the witness. The evidence of demand and acceptance as
contained in video cassette is ofcourse inadmissible. The argument that
certain other persons seen in the video film have not been cited as
witnesses or impleaded as accused can not be appreciated, as this court
has already held that contents of the cassettes are inadmissible.
11 For the reasons detailed in para nos.7 to 10 above, I am of
the opinion that prosecution has failed to even remotely raise suspicion
grave enough to put accused to trial. The court can not act as a mere
post office or mouth piece of the prosecution. The evidence relied upon
by prosecution has inherent infirmities and cannot in any manner be
sufficient for conviction, as laid down in Union of India Vs. Prafulla
Kumar Samal & Anr. reported as AIR 1979 SC 366. I, therefore,
discharge accused for offences punishable u/sec.7 & 13 (i) (d) & 13 (2)
of the PC Act.
1