IMPORTANT POINT
Electronic documents can be admitted as secondary evidence in cheque dishonour cases if they meet the requirements of the Evidence Act, ensuring justice is served.

JUDGMENT :

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1. This order will dispose of the afore titled two petitions. CRM-M-3775-2024 is filed by the petitioner/accused against order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P4) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sangrur whereby an application filed by the respondent/ complainant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed. CRM-M-3771-2024 is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sangrur whereby an application filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused alleging that the petitioner and her husband took loan of Rs.24.5 lakh from the respondent, out of which, they repaid Rs.15 lakh to the respondent and in order to discharge her liability, the petitioner issued cheque worth Rs.9.44 lakh in favour of the respondent but the same was dishonoured with remarks, “Funds Insufficient.” Then, the respondent sent statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter, filed private criminal complaint wherein the petitioner was summoned as accused and notice of accusation was served to the petitioner and she did not plead guilty. The respondent filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to prove and produce screen shots of the messages sent by the husband of the petitioner from his mobile phone No. 98787-16418 to the complainant, when the criminal complaint was fixed for cross-examination of the respondent and his attorney both of whom were already examined-in-chief. The said application was contested by the petitioner. However, the learned trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 19.9.2023 in the following terms:

“Therefore, applicant/complainant is hereby allowed to prove and produce the screen-shots of the messages sent by the husband of the accused from his mobile No. 98787-16418 to the complainant as no prejudice shall be caused to the accused as she will get an effective opportunity to controvert the averments of the complaint. However, it is pertinent to mention here that allowing the applicant/complainant to prove and produce on record the alleged screen shots of the messages would not tantamount to allowing the complainant to file an amended affidavit and affidavit already tendered by the complainant on 28.09.2021 shall be read into evidence. Accordingly, present application stands disposed off. Now to come up on 29.09.2023 for cross-examination of CW-1.”

3. Thereafter, the respondent filed another application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to prove copies of the aforesaid screen shots of the whatsapp messages sent by the husband of the petitioner to the complainant by leading secondary evidence supported by certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act as the original mobile phone wherein the aforesaid whatsapp messages were received is in possession of the complainant. The said application was also contested by the petitioner. The learned trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 22.12.2023 in the following terms:-

“Learned counsel for the complainant has moved the instant application for allowing him to tender the screen shots of the chats along with certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act into complainant evidence. Per-contra, learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, is not maintainable. Perusal of the file reveals that earlier complainant was permitted to prove on record the alleged screen shots in accordance with law vide application under section 311 Cr.P.C. which was allowed vide order dated 19.09.2023. Further, nomenclature of the provision cannot be permitted to subvert the ends of justice, especially when the contents of the application sugg