Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan – Appellants
Versus
Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 6927/2013]
Decided on : 16-01-2015
(2008) 2 SCC 492; (2012) 5 SCC 424; (1976) 3 SCC 736 – Relied upon
(b) Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 190(1)(b) – Taking cognizance – Purpose – To commence proceedings by issuing process u/s 204 to the accused. (Para 15)
(c) Criminal trial – Electronic evidence – Source and authenticity – Conversation with appellant claimed to be recorded – This source rejected by Forensic Science Laboratory being unsuitable for spectroscopic analysis – Its translation claimed to be authenticated by panchas who were not witnesses to the conversation – When source is rejected question of authenticity of its translation does not arise – Source and authenticity are the two key factors for an electronic evidence. (Para 16)
2014 (10) SCALE 660 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 190 and 204 – Crux of the matter, i.e., conversation of complainant with appellant becoming inadmissible in evidence – No case made out against appellant – Further prosecution would be futile exercise and abuse of process of law – Sheer waste of public money and time – Such prosecution would be infringement of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 17)
(1998) 5 SCC 749; (1977) 2 SCC 699; 1992 Supp(1) SCC 222 – Relied upon
(e) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Sanction for prosecution – Police filing final form requesting closure of case – Magistrate taking informed decision not to issue process – High Court directing Director General of Police to recommend for sanction – High Court exceeding jurisdiction. (Para 18)
(1997) 7 SCC 622 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
According to the complainant, he had to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/-by way of bribe for getting a certificate for nonagricultural use of his land.
The investigating officer submitted his report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 though wrongly mentioned as 169 Cr.PC.
Learned Magistrate accepted the closure report.
The High Court set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and issued directions to the DGP and the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the DGP to recommend for grant of sanction for prosecution of the appellant.
Result: Appeal allowed.
The admissibility of electronic evidence, including content from WhatsApp or similar messaging platforms, hinges on two key factors: the source of the evidence and its authenticity. For electronic evidence to be considered admissible, the source must be deemed reliable and admissible as evidence in the court of law. If the source is rejected or found inadmissible, then the question of the authenticity of the translated or derived content does not arise, as the foundational basis for its credibility is lacking.
Furthermore, the court emphasizes that the source and authenticity are crucial for electronic evidence. If the source of the electronic communication is not credible or is rejected, then the authenticity of its translation or interpretation is also rendered questionable. This underscores that without a reliable source, electronic evidence cannot be deemed trustworthy or admissible, regardless of the content’s translation or interpretation.
In summary, for electronic evidence such as WhatsApp content to be admissible, the court requires a credible source and verified authenticity. If either is lacking, the evidence cannot be reliably used in legal proceedings.
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. Appellant is accused no.1 in C.R. No. 3446 of 2010 of Bund Garden Police Station in the State of Maharashtra. The case is registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’).
3. Genesis is Annexure-P7-complaint dated 22.11.2010 given by the first respondent. According to him, he had to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/-by way of bribe for getting a certificate for nonagricultural use of his land. To quote from the complaint:
“On 5th October 2009 an advertisement of “Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Pune” appeared in dailyLokmat and Loksatta newspapers. The advertisement was for giving dealership of Petrol Pump. I had duly applied to the company Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for the same. As per the procedure my interview was arranged on 30th March 2010. I was selected for this work. As per the terms and conditions of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Pune it was binding on me to submit a “non agricultural certificate” of my land at Pimpalsuti, Tal Shirur, District Pune. To get the said certificate I applied to the Maval Sub Divisional Officer and Magistrate Pune on dated 9/9/2010. After the application I fulfilled all the documents required as per their demand.
After this today on date 22/11/2010 at 11/20 a.m. I went to the office of Maval Sub Divisional Officer and Magistrate Pune for enquiring about the non agricultural certificate which I had not received till then. That time I met the clerk Shri Suhas Soma. He asked me to meet clerk Shri Landge. When I personally met Shri Langde he asked me to meet Shri Sanjaysingh Chavan Sub Divisional Officer Maval. As per that I met Shri Sanjaysingh Chavan Sub divisional Officer Maval personally in his office. At that time he asked me the reason as to why I require the non agricultural land certificate. I told him the reason of petrol pump and also told him the area of land. After that he asked me to meet the clerk Suhas Soma. After I went out of his office, he called his clerk Suhas Soma in his cabin. After Shri Soma came out of the cabin he asked me “At what extent you are ready to pay?”. At that time I asked him “What will be the amount of challan?”. That time he said that “Challan amount is meager, an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-will have to be paid as practice. If your matter was for house then I would have requested the boss for less amount. But as you are going to do business you should not have any objection to pay Rs.1,00,000/-. At that time I requested the Office Superintendent Mr. Soma that “this amount is huge, some concession be given to me”. On that a compromise was made between me and him and he demanded an amount of Rs.75,000/-as a bribe.”
4. On the basis of the above complaint, the vigilance arranged a trap. The First Information Report narrates the events as follows:
“As the complaint filed by the complainant Mr. Dattatraya Phalke is of a crime which comes under Anti Corruption Act and as we are authorized to take cognizance of such crime on the basis of complaint filed by Mr. Phalke by deciding to arrange for a trap for arresting Mr. Chavan, Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub Division Maval, Pune and Mr. Soma, Office Superintendent (Shirastedar), Sub Divisional Office, Maval Pune while taking bribe from complainant Mr. Phalke and for that purpose by giving a written letter to the Hon’ble Medical Superintendent, Regional Mental Hospital, Yerawada, Pune from their office, the services of 1) Dr. Amol Ranganath Jadhav, age 25 years, Occupation-Service– Medical Officer, Regional Mental Hospital, Yerawada, Pune-6, residing at C-43, B. J. Medical College Hostel, Near Collector Office, Pune-48, 2) Dr. Sham Bandu Badse, age 55 years, Occupation–Service, Medical Officer, Regional Mental Hospital, Yerawada, Pune-6, residing at Sunderban Sadan, Nandanwan, Lohagon, Pune-48, got available
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
