The court emphasized that electronic evidence must comply with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act for admissibility, and the failure to provide necessary certification renders such evidence inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

2) Original Informant is required to invoke the constitutional powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India as well as inherent powers of this Court, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order passed on 04-06-2019 and 26-08-2019 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna; thereby allowing the respondent No.2/ original accused to put questions in respect of electronic evidence.

3) The factual matrix leading to the petition are that, respondent No.2 with one child- in-conflict with law, stood prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 354, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. The incident is stated to have occurred when the informant had gone to a shop for purchasing cake. After presentation of the charge-sheet against present respondent No.2, charge has been framed against him. The trial proceeded after he has pleaded not guilty. Examination-in-chief of the informant was recorded. Her cross-examination was completed on 14-12-2016. Thereafter it appears that as the matter was still pending, an application at Ex.37 came to be filed on behalf of the accused on 16-05-2018 for re- calling of PW 1, i.e. Present petitioner/informant and allowing the defence to cross-examine her. It was contended in the said application that accused has obtained a copy of the recording of CCTV camera in the form of CD with great efforts. It was specifically stated in the application that the shop owner had left the place, at the time of alleged incident, and therefore, the accused could not secure the said piece of evidence at the time when cross-examination of the informant was conducted on his behalf earlier. He could secure the CCTV footage after her cross. She has not disputed that there were CCTV cameras in the shop. The investigating officer had not collected the said footage. It was further contended that he was using another mobile during 2011-2012 and that mobile had got damaged. He has restored the password from his Facebook account. He could not collect the conversation data with informant, before the cross-examination of the informant earlier conducted. Now, he wants to produce both the pieces of evidence and wants to cross-examine the informant. He is not filling up the lacuna but it is necessary under these circumstances. Hence, he prayed that she be re-called for the cross-examination.

4) The application was objected by the learned APP on behalf of Prosecution. It has been stated that, at any earlier point of time, the accused had not called for any such evidence. The informant had claimed ignorance about existence of the CCTV cameras in her cross. It is not necessary to re-call the informant.

5) After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate has allowed the application Ex.37 on 04- 06-2019. Accordingly summons was issued to the informant and her further cross has been completed on 26-08-2019. The CCTV footage was shown to the informant in cross and her answers were recorded. Thereafter the advocate, who was representing the informant sought time to challenge the order below Ex.37 and on that count, the matter was adjourned.

6) Interestingly, the application Ex.38 was filed with application Ex.37 on the same day i.e. 16-05-2018. Application Ex.38 was for the production of document i.e. CCTV footage. No reason was given in the application as to why the application is filed at that stage. It was only contended that accused wanted to produce the CCTV footage and permission be granted.

7) Learned APP had given say to the application Ex.38 on the same day, on which he had filed say to application Ex.37 i.e. 01-08-2018. It was contended that the accused wanted to produce the recording of CCTV footage by recording it on CD and the conversation on Facebook in the form of text. However, this evidence can not be accepted under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Unless those documents are produced along