Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 16462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK ON THE 5th OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9711 of 2024 BETWEEN:- DEEPAK GUPTA S/O SHRI SUBHAS GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O DEEN DAYAL KI BAGHIYA SADAR BAZAR MURAR GWALIOR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPLICANT (BY SHRI VIVEK MISHRA - ADVOCATE) AND MUKESH VARMA S/O LATE SHRI VISHWANATH VARMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O SHAMBHU DAYAL KI BAGHICHI CHIKSANTR MURAR GWALIOR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT) This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Vivek Kumar Mishra,
Electronic records are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged the orders of the trial court and the revision court that allowed the respondent's application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to admit two electronic records (Postal Receipt and Delivery Report) as secondary evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the electronic records were admissible under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and that the trial court had rightly allowed the application to bring them on record.
Issues: Whether the electronic records (Postal Receipt and Delivery Report) were admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Electronic records are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, provided that the necessary compliance has been followed.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
ORDER
1. The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner arising out of the order dated 19-02-2024 passed by the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 03-11-2023 got dismissed, petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 03-11-2023 passed by the JMFC, Gwalior whereby the application preferred by the respondent under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was allowed and two documents; one Postal Receipt and another Delivery Report of notice were taken into evidence as secondary evidence.
2. Petitioner is an accused in the case and facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act instituted at the instance of respondent. As submitted, at the time of evidence of complainant, an application under Section 65 of Evidence Act is being preferred by the respondent for taking the Postal Receipt for sending the notice dated 08-02- 2017 issued by the India Post on record and Delivery Report through which complainant intended to show service of notice to the petitioner which is reflected Online on website of India Post, on record. Both these documents were not in possession of complainant in original, therefore, application under Section 65 of Evidence Act was preferred which was allowed by the trial Court ignoring the fact that the conditions as enumerated in Section 63 of the Evidence Act were not fulfilled. Therefore, the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal.
Heard.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as accused that both the documents referred above are required to be channelized through Section 63 of Evidence Act. However on close scrutiny it appears that both these documents are electronic records as per Section 65B of the Evidence Act, therefore, admissibility has been discussed in Section 65B of the Evidence Act in procedural/graded manner. Once the electronic record are being admitted in evidence as per Section 65B of the Evidence Act and necessary compliance have been followed and thereafter trial Court allowed the application, then no illegality or arbitrariness has been caused into it. Therefore, trial Court rightly allowed the application of complainant to bring those electronic record of India Post (Postal Receipt and Delivery Report) on record.
5. Needless to say that the relevant provisions shall be adhered to. 6. Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. (ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Anil* JUDGE Anil*
