A trial court cannot suo motu permit the rectification of evidentiary lacunae or the production of evidence after the matter has been reserved for judgment, although Section 65B certificates are generally considered curable defects at any stage before the trial concludes.

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2026 SUO-MOTO PERMITTING THE COMPLAINANT TO DISPLAY THE PEN DRIVE AND TO RECTIFY THE 65 B CERTIFICATE IN C.C.NO.30428/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ACJM.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court seeking to quash the order dated 01-07-2026 passed by the concerned Court permitting the complainant to display pen drive and to rectify the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, in the proceedings in C.C.No.30428 of 2021.

Heard Sri S Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Murthy D Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent.

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is the accused and the respondent, the complainant in C.C.No.30428 of 2021. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 120B of the IPC. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter before the concerned Court. What drives the petitioner/accused before this Court is a strange circumstance. The learned Magistrate after hearing the matter at length, reserves the matter for judgment on 12-06-2026. When the matter comes up before the Court on 01-07-2026, strangely without pronouncing the judgement, the concerned Court suo motu permits the complainant to display a compact disc and to rectify the 65B certificate in C.C.No.30428 of 2021. The order of the learned Magistrate reads as follows:

“While preparing for judgment it is noticed that, The contents of Ex.P.9 CD has not viewed/displayed at the time of recording evidence and Ex.P.10 the Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act is not from the person who has downloaded the contents of the Ex.P.9.

The Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that it is the duty of the counsel for the complainant to display the CD. However it ought to be seen that the CD was produced at the pre-cognizance stage and thereafter on 11-05-2023 the counsel for the complainant filed a memo to adopt the sworn statement for the stage evidence before charge. And thereafter on an application filed by the Complainant, the stage was corrected and plea of the accused recorded and on 21-08-2025 was examined and the contents of the CD was not displayed.

It ought to be seen that it is the duty of the Court at the time marking of Electronic records should have displayed to the witness and marked the said Exhibit. Considering error occurred on the part of the Court it is appropriate to provide an opportunity to the PW1 to speak about the said CD.

The another defence was that the Certificate Under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was Exhibited as Ex.P.10. However it appears from the evidence of the PW1 that he was not downloaded said contents of the CD by relying upon the decision Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal in Civil Appeal Nos.20825-20826 of 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Reported) wherein it was held that defective Certificate could be rectified and further appears from the record that the accused persons during the Course of cross examination of PW1 has displayed the pendrive which is marked as Ex.D.6. However they did not produce the Certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Considering the above curable defects, an opportunity has to be provided to the respective parties. Hence call on for compliance by 04-07-2026.”

The action of the learned Magistrate has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. The matter having been heard at length and reserved for its judgment on 12-06-2026, the Magistrate could not have listed the matter on 01-07-2026 for the purpose of directing the complainant to rectify all the lacunae that the Magistrate found while wanting to pass the judgment. The said jurisdiction admittedly was not available to the c