Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.: - This revision is directed against the order dated 07.10.2015, passed by the SDJM, Samalkha in FIR No.68 dated 07.03.2008.

2. The background is necessary. An application had been filed by the accused to examine the author of Mark DW4/A to DW4/H. The petitioner claims that CCTV camera had been installed at Jain Sathanak, 50, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Karnal and the memory card of the mobile phone for the audio recording is under the control and custody of one Lovely Arora. He had prepared CDs by taking the storage from the CCTV camera through a pen drive and which was transferred to a laptop and it was was in his possession. It was pleaded that DW4 - Sadhvi Jain Ananta had appeared as a defence witness and she was in conversation with Ramesh Jain and it was recorded in the audio and video which was placed in the Court file when Sadhvi Jain Ananta was under examination on 15.05.2015. One set of 8 CDs was handed over to the complainant in the Court and the accused had played the audio and video CDs on the computer and laptop. It was pleaded that in order to prove the electronic evidence, they want to examine Lovely Arora who was maintaining and controlling the CCTV camera and had taken the storage from the DVR to the pen drive which was transferred to the laptop and through laptop, CDs were prepared. Similarly, he had taken the memory card from the mobile and then transferred it from the memory card to laptop and then from laptop to the audio CDs and these are relevant pieces of evidence and in order to prove the same, they want to examine the person under whose care and custody the DVR was kept in the Sathanak. It was pleaded that it was necessary to examine him in the interest of justice and equity. The concluding paragraph of the application reads as under:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that application for allowing the applicant-accused to examine the author of documents Mark- DW4/A to DW4/H by producing the original DVR of CCTV camera recording for video installed at Jain Sathanak, 50, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal, and memory card of mobile phone for audio recording which is under the control and custody of Lovely Arora, who has prepared the CDs Mark- DW4/A to DW4/H by taking the storage in the CCTV camera through pan drive and after that preparing the same through laptop which is in possession of Lovely Arora. In the interest of justice and equity proper orders may kindly be passed.”

3. Reply was not filed by the complainant. The trial Court dismissed the application and noted the following:-

“After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the contents, the facts of the application are same as of the application filed on 24.07.2015 wherein permission was sought to place the detail of abstracts/contents of recording of audio and video cassettes CD and the said application was dismissed on 11.09.2015 after seeking reply from the complainant and after detailed arguments. Same facts have been alleged in the application filed today. Furthermore, the defence evidence has already been closed on 11.09.2015. Therefore, the order passed on 11.09.2015 cannot be altered by allowing the application filed today in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C.”

4. It is necessary to mention that the petitioner had earlier moved an application (Annexure P-4) which was decided on 11.09.2015 (Annexure P-5). The prayer made in the application (Annexure P-4), was for permission to bring the contents of the audio and video CDs already placed on the file in the examination-in-chief of DW-4 and for playing the same in the Court. The petitioner therein had referred to the provisions of Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act as well to the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008.

5. That application was dismissed. Para no.4 & 5 of the order read as under:-

“5. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the contents, the applicant/accused has merely stated in their application that they want to place on