The certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act must accompany the electronic record when it is produced in evidence, and the prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which reliance may be placed to the accused before the commencement of the trial.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl. P.P. for the State and Mr. P.K. Deomani, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15.02.2021, passed in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 2018, arising out of G.R. No. 735 of 2018 [Telco P.S. Case No. 41 of 2018] by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, whereby the petition dated 15.02.2020, filed on behalf of the prosecution, has been allowed and prosecution is permitted to examine Atul Sahu as a witness for compliance of provision under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, now pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, East Singhbhum at Jamshedppur.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that daughter of the informant was married with the son of the petitioner and after marriage, accused persons subjected her to cruelty and harassed her with a view to coerce her to meet demand of Rs. 5 laks. Furthermore it has been alleged that the petitioner on several occasions attempted to commit rape upon her.

5. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after institution of the First Information Report, investigation started and after due investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted on 27.04.2018 against the present petitioner, who happens to be the father-in-law of the daughter of the informant, keeping investigation pending against other accused persons. He further submitted that in the charge-sheet, altogether seven persons have been made charge-sheet witnesses and said Atul Sahu has never been made witness in the charge-sheet.

6. Learned senior counsel also submitted that upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken for the said offences by the concerned Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, as it was triable by the Court of Sessions. He submitted that thereafter charges have been framed against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A/34, 376(2)(f)/511 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 18.02.2019. He further submitted that after framing of charge, all the charge-sheet witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and their evidences were duly recorded by the learned Trial Court. He also submitted that at the fag end of the trial, prosecution has filed a petition under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act on 18.01.2020 along with the certificate, issued by Atul Sahu and the petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the said petition, stating therein that certificate in question is not the part of investigation and it cannot be considered as evidence, in terms of Section 173(5) of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that vide order dated 03.02.2020, learned A.P.P. has not pressed the petition dated 18.01.2020, which was duly recorded in the order-sheet. He submitted that prosecution has filed a petition under Section 231(1) of Cr.P.C. for recording evidence of Atul Sahu to prove the certificate of photographs and CD on 15.02.2020 and the petitioner filed the response to the said petition on 26.02.2020. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the learned Trial Court has allowed the petition, filed by the prosecution and permitted the prosecution to examine Atul Sahu as a witness, for compliance of the provision under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, vide order dated 15.02.2021. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has moved before this Court.

7. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel has advanced his argument by way of submitting that the learned Court has failed to t