Section 65B certificate and discharge standards: electronic evidence defects are curable, and no mini trial at discharge.

A Section 65B certificate is required only when electronic record evidence is tendered at trial, not as a condition precedent at the charge-sheet stage, so prosecution cannot be quashed for its absence at that stage. Use of a spy camera during a preliminary corruption inquiry before FIR registration was treated as permissible verification, distinct from formal investigation, and did not vitiate the case. At the discharge stage, the court must only see whether the material discloses the offence and cannot conduct a mini trial; on that standard, discharge was unwarranted and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a certificate under Section 65B was required at the stage of filing of the charge-sheet for use of electronic record evidence; (ii) Whether the use of a spy camera during a preliminary inquiry before registration of the FIR rendered the prosecution case illegal; (iii) Whether discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was warranted on the material before the trial court.

Issue (i): Whether a certificate under Section 65B was required at the stage of filing of the charge-sheet for use of electronic record evidence.

Analysis: The requirement under Section 65B applies when the electronic record is sought to be produced in evidence at trial. The provision does not make production of the certificate at the charge-sheet stage a condition precedent for the prosecution to proceed. The defect, if any, is curable when the document is tendered in evidence.

Conclusion: The requirement of a Section 65B certificate was not attracted at the charge-sheet stage and the prosecution could not be quashed on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the use of a spy camera during a preliminary inquiry before registration of the FIR rendered the prosecution case illegal.

Analysis: In corruption cases, a preliminary inquiry may be undertaken to ascertain whether the information discloses a cognizable offence. Such inquiry is distinct from investigation under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The use of the spy camera formed part of that preliminary verification and did not mark the commencement of investigation before the FIR.

Conclusion: The preliminary inquiry was permissible and did not vitiate the prosecution.

Issue (iii): Whether discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was warranted on the material before the trial court.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the court must accept the prosecution material at face value and determine only whether the ingredients of the offence are disclosed. It cannot conduct a mini trial or assess the probative value of the evidence as if deciding guilt. The record disclosed material beyond the electronic evidence, and the issue was therefore fit for trial.

Conclusion: Discharge was not justified and the trial court's order dismissing the discharge application was .

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the High Court was set aside and the order of the trial court refusing discharge was restored, leaving the criminal proceedings to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A Section 65B certificate is required when electronic evidence is produced at trial, not at the charge-sheet stage, and at the discharge stage the court must only see whether the prosecution material discloses the offence without embarking on a mini trial.

---