2021 (3) TMI 888 - HC - Indian Laws

Electronic Evidence Admissibility: HC Upholds Certificate Necessity, Rejects Handwriting Analysis Request for Defense.

Shreyas. S., Versus Ravikumar S.N.,

The HC partially quashed the Trial Court's order, allowing the application under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing the necessity of a ... Dishonor of Cheque - documents sought for handwriting expert so as to identify the admitted writings - rejection of application u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act - HELD THAT:- In view of the ratio laid down in Bir Singh’s case [2019 (2) TMI 547 - SUPREME COURT], the contention that the other documents are in the handwriting of the different persons, is not a ground. Hence, in the case on hand, I do not find any error committed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of allowing the application filed under 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the witness DW.1 is to be recalled and he shall be permitted to lead his further evidence by placing the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act while marking the document. In order to prove his defence, an opportunity is to be given to the accused, who has been examined as DW.1. Petition allowed. Issues:1. Quashing of order rejecting applications under Sections 45 and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 311 of Cr.P.C.2. Admissibility of electronic records without the required certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.3. Application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for handwriting expert's opinion.4. Interpretation of the judgment in BIR SINGH V. MUKESH KUMAR regarding the necessity of allowing applications.5. Requirement of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act at the time of marking documents.6. Recalling witness DW.1 for further evidence with the necessary certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought to quash the order rejecting applications under Sections 45 and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court had rejected the applications based on the absence of required certificates for electronic records under Section 65B. The petitioner argued for the necessity of producing documents for handwriting analysis under Section 45 to establish a defense. The judgment in BIR SINGH V. MUKESH KUMAR was cited to support the need for allowing such applications.2. The Trial Judge relied on the BIR SINGH case and concluded that the petitioner's defense did not warrant allowing the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, regarding the application under Section 65B, the Judge found an error in rejecting it, emphasizing the need for the certificate at the time of marking documents. The judgment in STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA V. M.R.HIREMATH clarified the timing of presenting the certificate under Section 65B.3. The Judge acknowledged the petitioner's need to rely on electronic records but highlighted the necessity of complying with the certificate requirement under Section 65B for admissibility. The rejection of the application under Section 45 was confirmed since the petitioner did not dispute the signature on the relevant document.4. The judgment emphasized the importance of the certificate under Section 65B for electronic records and the timing of its submission. It was deemed necessary to recall witness DW.1 to provide further evidence with the required certificate to support the petitioner's defense adequately.5. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, partially quashing the order that rejected the application under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and directing the Trial Court to permit the production of documents with the necessary certificate. The Court also confirmed the rejection of the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, in line with the findings of the Trial Judge.