IMPORTANT POINTS
Certificate under Section 65(B) is required at the time when the electronic record is sought to be produced in evidence at the trial, not at the stage of framing of charge sheet.
Preliminary inquiry may be required before lodging FIR.
While considering an application for discharge the court has to evaluate the truth of the materials brought on record and see if they disclose ingredients of an offence. Court is not required to see whether material would warrant a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dated 27 April 2017 by which a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 [‘CrPC’] was allowed. While doing so, the High Court set aside an order dated 5 December 2016 of the Special Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the application of the respondent for discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC.

3. The respondent was at the material time serving as Deputy Commissioner in the Land Acquisition Section of Bangalore Development Authority [‘BDA’]. BDA had acquired certain lands for the formation of a layout on the outskirts of Bengaluru. The complainant moved the court for denotification of the lands following which, a direction had been issued. Accordingly, the complainant made an application to BDA for denotification of the lands.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 6 November 2012, the complainant attempted to meet the respondent (accused no.1) by whom the file was to be placed before the Denotification Committee. It is alleged that though the complainant was not allowed to meet the respondent, he met his driver through whom he got to know that such cases were being ‘mediated’ by the second accused, an advocate purporting to act as the agent of the respondent. A complaint was lodged with the Lokayukta Police on 8 November 2012 apprehending that a bribe would be asked for by the second accused. The police handed over a spy camera together with the instructions to be followed. It is alleged that a meeting of the second accused was arranged with a representative of the complainant. On 12 and 13 November 2012, a meeting took place with the second accused who is stated to have informed the representatives of the complainant of the amount which will be charged for the settlement of the deal. The prosecution alleges that on 15 November 2012 the complainant met the respondent at about 7.30 pm near the BDA office. The conversation between the complainant and the respondent was recorded on the spy camera in the course of which, it has been alleged, there was some discussion in regard to the amount to be exchanged for the completion of the work.

5. On 16 November 2012, a complaint was lodged before the Lokayukta and a first information report was registered. Subsequently, it is alleged that a trap was set up and the second accused was apprehended while receiving an amount of Rupees five lakhs on behalf of the respondent towards an initial payment of the alleged bribe. A charge sheet was filed after investigation.

6. Charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

7. The respondent instituted three successive petitions under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka [Criminal Petition No. 7562/2012, Writ Petition No. 11252/2013 and Writ Petition No. 20394/2013] for quashing of the criminal proceedings. The first two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on 26 February 2013, leaving it open to the respondent to pursue his remedies for seeking a discharge from the proceedings. The High Court dismissed the third petition.

8. The first respondent then filed a discharge application under section 239 of the CrPC before the Special Judge, Bengaluru. The trial judge dismissed the application by an order dated 5 December, 2016. This order was questioned in revision before the High Court. The revision was rejected on the ground of maintainability. The respondent instituted a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC which has resulted in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 27 April 2017.

9. The learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings against the respondent on the ground that (i) in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence of the electronic record based on the spy camera is inadmissible in evidence; (ii) the prose