##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.293 of 2026

DATE: 23.03.2026

Between:

Bekkam Revanth @ Bittu

…. Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND

The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Raikal Police Station,

Jagtial District, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

…. Respondent/Complainant

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision

petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2026 in S.C.No.(NDPS) 01 of 2024, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Jagtial, wherein the petitioner herein

##PAGE2##

2

has filed Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2026 under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. praying the Court to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioner and further to produce and mark the electronic evidence i.e. a pen drive along with a certificate to prove that the petitioner was not present at the scene of offence on the date of the alleged incident. The trial Court has partly allowed the said petition but refused to receive the pen drive on the ground that it constitutes secondary evidence and it is not admissible at this stage. The trial Court further observed that as the petitioner has produced a copy (Pendrive) transcribed from another copy is not admissible unless it was directly compared with the original. Aggrieved by the said order, the present

criminal case is filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri B. Arjun Rao, learned counsel for revision petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent.

##PAGE3##

3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has erroneously not received the Electronic Evidence/Pendrive and that it is not the appropriate stage to discard such evidence on the ground of admissibility. He further submitted that it can be received along with Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 63(4) of the BNSS, 2023 and that its evidentiary value has to be tested only during the course of trial with regard to proof and relevancy. He further submitted that this settled principle of law has been completely over looked by the trial Court while deciding the said application. Therefore, he requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by permitting the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his defence, including the pen drive, to establish his

innocence.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the trial Court has

##PAGE4##

4

rightly considered the petition by refusing to receive the electronic evidence in the form of a pen drive and that the alleged CCTV footage was recorded on the mobile phone of the petitioner and then it was subsequently transferred to a pen drive, therefore, it cannot be treated as an evidence and it is not admissible. Hence, he requested

the Court to dismiss the present criminal revision case.

5. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that, while marking documents, the Court must consider their admissibility and relevancy. If any question arises regarding admissibility and relevancy, the documents can be marked with an objection, and the issue can be decided while adjudicating the matter. In the present case, the issue is of not admissibility. When documents are filed by the petitioner, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to answer the questions raised by the trial Court regarding admissibility, he will lose the benefit

##PAGE5##

5

of the documents. Therefore, at this stage, the trial Court cannot refuse to mark the documents merely on the ground that it is secondary evidence. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside, and the trial Court is directed to mark the same, subject to proof,

re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document