Certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is essential for the admissibility of electronic records; however, courts may permit delayed certification if it does not prejudice the accused.

ORDER

The petitioner is the 1 st accused in S.C No 436 of 2018 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda, which is arising from Crime No.200/2017 of Chalakkudy Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are punishable under sections 302, 307 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that, the first accused, while driving a tipper lorry from Chalkudy to Athirappilly, saw the deceased and his brother going to Chalakudy through the other side of the road, and thereupon the 1 st accused took a ‘U’ turn in front of the Silver Storm Park, situated on the side of the said road, went towards the Chalakudy side and hit behind the scooter of the deceased Libin, thereby caused his death.

3. The images of the 1 st accused taking ‘U’ turn and the collision between the vehicles were captured by CCTV cameras installed in front of the said Silver Storm Park. Therefore, on 22.02.2017, the investigation officer, with the assistance of CW 20, who is an Electrical Engineer by profession and was working as the Mechanical and Operation Department of the said park, got the said video footage copied in DVD and produced the same before the court. However, while producing the said DVD before the court, the investigation officer mistakenly did not obtain and produce the certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act. Therefore at the commencement of the trial, the learned Public Prosecutor filed Crl.M.P 264/2022 under sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C summoning CW20 to produce the said certificate, the copy of which is produced in this Crl.MC as Annexure A1.

4. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection and it is Annexure A2. It was contended that, the application submitted by the prosecution to get the certificate after more than five years of its seizure is not permissible and the prosecution is attempting to fill up the lacunae, which would cause serious prejudice to the accused. The mahazer prepared at the time of seizure does not contain any indication as to the fulfillment of conditions in section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act. The statement of CW20 recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C is also silent about the compliance of the said conditions. Hence he sought the dismissal of the petition.

5. However, after hearing both sides,the learned Sessions Judge, allowed the said application as per Annexure A3 order and the same is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

6. Heard Sri. Geo Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vipin Narayan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

7. The crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the certification under section 65B of the Evidence Act, can be permitted to be prepared and produced before the court, after the lapse of years (five years) and without verifying the original data.

8. Before going to the said question, it is profitable to refer to the statutory provisions applicable in this regard. Section 65B was inserted in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , with effect from 17/10/2000. Since then, the same has become the subject matter of judicial pronouncements on various occasions through landmark judgments. The principles relating to the same evolved through several judicial pronouncements of the Honourable S