Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)Jisal Rasak vs The State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2019
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2019
The petitioner has filed this Original Petition for a direction
to the Magistrate to consider CMP No.4199-A/2019 also along
with the original private complaint taken on the files by the
Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakkada as CMP
No.4199/2019 for offences allegedly punishable under Section 500
IPC. The learned Magistrate recorded the oral statements of the
complainant as also two witnesses and was convinced about
proceeding against the accused for offences punishable under
Section 500 IPC. Yet no action has been taken in CMP No.4199-
A/2019 for a direction to the Police authorities to seize the
communication device of the accused persons so as to substantiate
the oral evidence adduced by the complainant, with electronic
OP(Crl.) 510/2019
3
evidence. The learned Magistrate has directed the SHO,
Vilappilsala Police Station to enquire and file a report under
Section 202(1) Cr.PC, but at the same time, has not done anything
with CMP No.4199-A/2019, which does not appear to be proper
because seizure of the electronic device which communicated the
allegedly defamatory messages will have to be seized at the earliest
so as to support the evidence of the complainant regarding his
allegation of defamation. The learned Magistrate shall go through
the judgment of this Court in Jisal Rasak v. State of Kerala [2019
(4) KHC 928] wherein the importance of the electronic evidence is
emphasised and stated with clarity. An expert examination of the
electronic evidence is also mentioned in Section 79A of the
Information Technology Act, which about who and how an
electronic evidence has to be examined. Under the circumstances,
the Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the
OP(Crl.) 510/2019
4
Magistrate to consider CMP No.4199-A/2019 expeditiously and
dispose the petition.
Section 79A in The Information Technology Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
1