1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 13.02.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

Crl.R.C(MD)No.78 of 2020

and

Crl.MP(MD)No.700 of 2020

Ulaganathan : Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/A2

Vs.

State rep. by

The Inspector of Police,

Rajapalayam North Police Station,

Virudhunagar District. : Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Revision has been filed under section 397(1)

and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order, dated

27.11.2019 passed in Cr.M.P No.3310 of 2019 in S.C.No.90 of 2016 on

the file of the Principal Sessions Judge Srivilliputhur.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthusamy

For Respondent : Mr.APG. Ohm Chairma Prabhu

Government Advocate (Criminal side)

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order, dated

27.11.2019 passed in Cr.M.P No.3310 of 2019 by the Principal

Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur.

2.The petitioner, who has arrayed as A2 in connection with a

case in Crime No.3 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police,

filed a petition in Crl.MP No.3310 of 2019 in S.C.No.90 of 2016 on

the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, to permit

him to given evidence and exhibit the relevant video footage by

marking the pen drive on the defence side document. The learned

Judge allowed the petition on 27.11.2019 with condition to examine

the Cameraman first and then mark the pen drive. Aggrieved by the

said order, the petitioner/A2 is before this court.

3.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 argued

that the petitioner/A2 sustained injuries in the above said incident

and the deceased also came to the occurrence place with weapons

along with three persons and they have also attacked with knife and

the petitioner and another one Murugan were also injured and

admitted in the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam and after that, the

respondent police arrested the petitioner/A2 from the hospital in

forcible manner and at that time, one of the News Agency Cameraman

Karpaga Gnaniyar also took video coverage and saved in the computer

and after that, he handed over the same to the petitioner in the

form of pen drive and hence, it is a necessary proof on the side of

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

the petitioner to prove the arrest and the above said Cameraman also

ready for defence side witness and since the respondent police and

the de-facto complainant threatened him, he could not come to the

court to mark the above said pen drive (video footage) on the

defence side witness and the petitioner/A2 was arrested at the

Government Hospital, Rajapalayam and it should be proved by marking

through defence side evidence and if the petitioner was not allowed,

he would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and prays that the

criminal revision has to be allowed. Further, the learned counsel

for the petitioner/A2 submitted the ruling reported in (2018)2 SCC

801 (Shafhi Mohammed Vs. State of H.P) contending that threshold

admissibility of electronic evidence cannot be ruled out on any

technicality if same is relevant and its authenticity and procedure

for its admissibility may depend on fact situation such as whether

person producing such evidence is in a position to furnish

certificate under section 65-B(4) and if party producing electronic

evidence is not in possession of device from which electronic

document was produced, then such party, held, cannot be required to

produce certificate under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act and

requirement of certificate under section 65-B(4) being procedural,

can be relaxed by court wherever interest of justice so justifies,

thus requirement of certificate under section 65-B(4) is not always

mandatory.

5.O