Electronic evidence inadmissible under Section 319 CrPC without Section 65B certificate; summoning based solely on trial-recorded admissible evidence showing prima facie conviction case if unrebutted; trial court to decide afresh.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.12.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2025 (CNR No. UPBJ010049982025) ' Mahendra Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others ', arising out of Criminal Case No. 8563 of 2021 relating to case crime No. 564 of 2020, under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Seohara, District Bijnor, whereby the revision preferred by the opposite party no.2/informant has been allowed and order dated 6.2.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (FTC-1)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bijnore in Criminal Case No. 8563 of 2021 (State Vs. Ashish Maheshwari and others) dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2 has been set aside.

3. The genesis of the present case is that an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (FTC-1)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 8563 of 2021 relating to case crime No. 564 of 2020, under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Seohara, District Bijnor. The learned trial court has rejected the application of the complainant-Mahendra Tyagi under Cr.P.C vide order dated 6.2.2025. Thereafter, against the said order, the complainant/opposite party no.2 has preferred a Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2025 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor which is decided by the order impugned dated 17.12.2025 and the criminal revision was allowed and the learned trial court has been directed to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.

4. The revisionists being aggrieved by the said order has preferred the present criminal revision before this Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionists has vehemently submitted that the order passed by the learned trial court dated 6.2.2025 is purely legal and justifiable order. The finding recorded by the learned trial court is absolutely as per law. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that the order dated 17.12.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2025 is not legal because neither ingredients of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is made out nor compliance of Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been made. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be rejected and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 6.2.2025 be restored.

6. There are two contradictory judgment on the question of law in the present matter have been passed, one by the learned Magistrate Court and another by learned Sessions Judge in exercise of power of revisional court. Whereas, the basic question involved is whether the ingredient of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is made out or not and whether provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been complied or not. That is major contradiction as submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists.

7. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the pen drive which has been made basis/evidence for summoning the revisionists is not evidence or substantive evidence. Learned Senior Counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2019), whe