Police official can mark S.65-B for own videographs, but trial court must consider objection for CCTV footage from third-party device.

O R D E R

The present petition has been filed by the accused in Spl.S.C.No.115 of

2020 on the file of the learned Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST Act, Theni challenging the order passed under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in Cr.M.P.No.55 of 2026 dated 08.04.2026.

2. The petitioner is an accused charged with the offence under Section

302 of IPC and is facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.115 of 2020.

3. P.W.14, who is a police official, had videographed the lodge room. He was chief-examined and cross-examined on 26.12.2024. Through him, the videographs taken were marked as M.O.21 and the CCTV footages downloaded from the lodge were marked as M.O.22. However, at the time of marking those materials, the certificate under Section 65-B was not produced through P.W.14.

4. In order to rectify the said defect, the investigating agency has filed Cr.M.P.No.55 of 2026 seeking to recall P.W.14 for the purpose of marking the Section 65-B certificate. The said application was allowed by the trial Court.

Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, insofar as the videographs taken by P.W.14 are concerned, marking the Section 65-B certificate through him may be proper. However, insofar as the CCTV footages downloaded from the lodge system are concerned, the Section 65-B certificate cannot be marked through the police official and can be marked only through the concerned lodge owner or any person in management of the lodge. Therefore, objection is raised with regard to the procedure adopted by the trial Court in permitting P.W.14 to mark the Section 65-B certificate even for the downloaded CCTV footages.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents / investigating agency submitted that P.W.14 alone had taken the videographs and had also downloaded the CCTV footages from the lodge. Thereafter, he had presented the same before the concerned laboratory for obtaining the Section 65-B certificate. Therefore, according to him, P.W.14 is the competent person to mark the Section 65-B certificate for both the videographs as well as the downloaded CCTV footages.

7.This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

8. Insofar as the videographs taken by P.W.14 (police official) are concerned, there can be no doubt whatsoever that he is the competent person to mark the certificate under Section 65-B. However, insofar as the CCTV footages downloaded from the lodge system are concerned, the objection raised by the petitioner shall be considered by the trial Court at the time of the marking of the same through P.W.14. With the above observations, the objections raised by the petitioner shall be taken into account by the trial Court while considering the Section 65-B certificate relating to the CCTV footages.

9. With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.