ORDER

Dated this the 15th day of June, 2022 This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking to quash an order passed by Special Court for SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri (for short ‘the court below’) in Crl.M.P.No.454/2022 in S.C.No.694/2021 originated from Crime No.2/2021 of ERO, Tirur.

2. Crl.M.P.No.454/2022 was filed by the petitioner herein before the court below under Section 233(3) r/w Section 91 Cr.P.C. The averment of the petitioner was that on 18.01.2021, Kerala Vision Channel, Tirur News had telecasted news regarding the arrest of the accused herein by CW11 Anilkumar alongwith about 50 Kilogram ganja and had shown the visuals of the accused alongwith CW1 Sajitha and CW5 Yusaf and about 12 parcels wrapped in a paper written Nestle KitKat and tied with brown cello tape placed on the bonnet of the jeep belonging to the Excise Department. It is also stated that the said video was displayed and the news telecasted in the official YouTube channel of Kerala Vision, Malappuram.

3. According to the petitioner, the said video and the news telecasted are very essential to establish his defence in the prosecution initiated against him. Accordingly, he seeks for production of the original records of the news and visuals, certified under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) before the court. The court below has rejected the application and it’s reasoning is incorporated in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, which is extracted herein below :-

“It is to be noted that the original is the device where the matter is recorded. The same as such cannot be produced before the court. Now as per the petition what is sought to be produced is the original record of the news telecasted on 18.01.2021 regarding the arrest of the accused. The telecasted one is admittedly an edited one. The edited matter cannot be certified u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. The telecasted news was that the accused was arrested by CW11 Anilkumar along with about 50 Kg ganja and the visuals of the accused along with CW1 Sajitha, CW5 Yusuf and about 12 parcel packets wrapped in paper with writing Nestle KitKat and tied with brown cello tape, is an edited version. Since the record regarding the telecasted matter is admittedly an edited one it cannot be certified u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Since the news telecasted in Kerala Vision channel on 18.01.2021 is only an edited one it cannot be received in evidence. Therefore this petition is only liable dismissed”.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the reasons stated by the court below is devoid of merits and the order impugned being incorrect is liable to be set aside and Crl.M.P.No.454/2022 needs to be remanded to the court below for reconsideration. The learned counsel has also pointed out that Section 233(3) Cr.P.C contemplates that when the application is rejected by the court it has to record that the production of the document was sought, for vexation or delay. According to him, the court below failed to state anything of that nature in the impugned order, and therefore, the order suffers for illegality.

5. This court has noticed that under Section 233 Cr.P.C, the court has a discretion in the matter of issuance of summons for production of a document. The application needs to be allowed by the court only on arriving at a satisfaction as to the relevancy of the document in the prosecution case and that the purpose behind, is not vexation or delay of proceedings.

6. In the view of the court below, the video exhibited and the news broadcasted in the news channel is only an edited version and cannot be certified under Section 65B of the Act. The reason stated by the court below while declining to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner is a correct one. In the view of this court also, the video and the news item called for is irrelevant and will not serve any purpose in the proposed trial. Therefore, in