ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, (cid:145)the Act(cid:146)) assailing the order dated 03.01.2023 passed in Criminal M.P.No.77 of 2022 in Sessions Case No.184 of 2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, wherein the State Police sought for receiving a Compact Disc (C.D.) and a Pen Drive alleging that on the ground that PW.3 has video-graphed the incident and recorded the same in a C.D. and pen drive, and handing over the same to the Investigating Officer is relevant for adjudication of the dispute before the Court.

2. Heard Mr. Vijay Ashrit, learned counsel for the revision petitioner; and Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-

State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has ignored the order passed by the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotakar vs. Kailash Kiushanrao Gorantya1 wherein a Three-Bench Judge of Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court emphasized that electronic records being susceptible for tampering and alteration, without safeguards, if they are taken in evidence, would lead to travesty of justice.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, therefore, contended that after recording evidence of PWs.1 to 3, if the above documents are permitted to be received by the Court, then it would cause prejudice to the revision petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, contended that the prosecution has taken all the precautionary measures as required under the Indian Evidence Act for receiving the electronic evidence of the C.D. and pen drive. The PW.3 has also deposed that he had video-graphed the incident and preserved it in the form of a C.D. and pen drive. Therefore, it is not introduced for the first time and in case if these two documents are not permitted to be produced before the Court, grave prejudice would be caused to the de facto complainant.

6. Perused the record, including the elaborate Docket Order passed by the Trial Court and other connected

1 (2020) 3 S.C.C. 216

material including copy of the counter-affidavit filed by the revision petitioner before the Trial Court and also charge-

sheet.

7. The revision petitioner / accused is charged for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. The incident which took place on 10.08.2020 where the de facto complainant is stated to have received injuries in the hands of the revision petitioner was allegedly video-graphed by PW.3. In normal course, the prosecution should have filed the C.D. and pen drive along with charge-sheet. But, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, those documents were not filed along with charge-sheet. However, when the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is recorded, it is elicited by the prosecution that PW.3 has video-graphed the entire incident in which the de facto complainant had received injuries in the hands of the revision petitioner. If the statement of PW.3 is to be taken as correct, the evidence which was recorded in the C.D. and pen drive are very vital to prove the charge levelled against the revision petitioner. Since these two documents are likely to go against the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has resisted unsuccessfully before the Trial Court.

8. Further, the valid point made by the revision petitioner is that the C.D. and pen drive cannot be received in evidence unless relevant provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well as Information Technology Act, 2000 are complied with. It is to be noted that at the stage of receiving the documents, the only aspect to be considered is whether how far the documents in question are relevant for the Trial Court, and whether the documents in question can be received in evidence or not. The revision petitioner can certainly resist receiving of the documents if they are filed in order to fill lacunae or if he takes a pl