1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

WRIT PETITION NO.14324/2019(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHREYAS. S.,

S/O SUDARSHAN

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

NO.935, 1^ST MAIN ROAD

LAKSHMI PURAM

MYSURU-570 001.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI K.S.RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

RAVIKUMAR S.N.,

S/O S.P.NANJE GOWDA

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

R/AT SEETHA PURA VILLAGE

CHINAKURALI HOBLI

PANDAVAPURA TALUK

MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI ROHITH SWAMY B.S., ADVOCATE – (ABSENT))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2019

VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND BY

DIRECTING THE COURT TO ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS FILED

ON DATED 27.12.2016 AND 22.12.2018 OF THIS PETITIONER

2

VIDE ANNEXURES-B, C AND D, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF

MANDAMUS AND THE RESPONDENTS BE DIRECTED.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to quash the order dated 15.02.2019 vide Annexure-E

passed in C.C.No.76/2017 by issuing a writ of certiorari and

directing the Court to allow the applications filed on 27.12.2016

and 22.12.2018 vide Annexures-B, C and D.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is

an accused in the proceedings before the trail Court for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The petitioner herein filed three applications

(i)under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the

documents for the opinion of the handwriting expert; (ii) under

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to produce certain

electronic documents and (iii) under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

recalling DW.1. The Trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2019

3

considering the material available on record rejected all the

applications on the ground that the accused in the present case

is producing the original e-mail print out regarding Flight ticket

booking, online tickets, online food order bill, online service tax

copy and GST registration certificate and sought to accept this

documentary evidence on his behalf. As per sub section 4 of

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the electronic records

must also be accompanied with a certificate identifying the

electronic record, particulars of any device involved in the

production of that electronic record, purporting to be signed by a

person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the

operation of the relevant device or the management of the

relevant

activities.

If

any

electronic

records

are

not

accompanied with any such certificate signed and issued by a

person who is responsible for the official position in relation to

the operation of the relevant device, they are not admissible

under the said Section. Admittedly, the said documents are not

accompanied with any such certificate issued by a person holding

the responsible official position in relation thereto. Hence, there

cannot be any order allowing the petitioner to produce those

4

documents. The other application is filed under Section 45 of

the Indian Evidence Act to send the documents for handwriting

expert so as to identify the admitted writings.

3.

The learned Trial Judge considering the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of BIR SINGH V. MUKESH KUMAR

has come to the conclusion that there is no need to allow the

application. The counsel would submit that on the very day of

alleged issuance of the cheque, he was in Delhi and in order to

prove the said defence, he has to produce all these documents.

It is also contended that the complainant in the complaint itself

has speci