The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge allowing the admissibility of the

electronic evidence of photographs, CCTV footage and CD9s

produced in case No.17/2018.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

production of the certificate under Section 65(B)(4) of Indian

Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of

evidence by way of electronic record as held by the Apex Court

in the Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

and others.

3.

On the other hand, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the order

passed by the Sessions Judge admitting the electronic evidence

as secondary evidence in the absence of certificate under Section

65(B)(4) Indian Evidence Act is permissible. Hence, the order

passed by the Sessions Judge cannot be faulted with.

4.

The Apex Court in the case of Arjun (Supra) at para

59 has held as follows:

3

< 59. We may reiterate, therefore, that the

certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition

precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of

electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra),

and incorrectly <clarified