Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Orbit Electricals Private Limited VS Deepak Kishan Chhabria...
Orbit Electricals Private Limited VS Deepak Kishan Chhabria - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1297 : The legal document contains detailed information about CCTV footage from Court Room-II on 13.10.2023, including timestamps and observations. Specifically, it states that the CCTV footage was used to verify the timing of proceedings and the presence of individuals, with the clock being 27 minutes ahead of actual time. The footage confirmed that the NCLAT bench was aware of a Supreme Court order from the morning session, and that senior advocates (Mr. Ramji Srinivasan and Mr. Krishnendu Dutta) had copies of the order and attempted to read it out. The document also notes that the CCTV footage, combined with the transcript, left no doubt that the NCLAT bench was apprised of the Supreme Court''''s order, which required the judgment to be pronounced only after the AGM results were declared. The footage is described as making it ''''abundantly clear'''' that the NCLAT was aware of the order, despite the Member (Judicial) claiming no official communication. This confirms the existence and use of CCTV footage without a transcript, and provides detailed factual observations derived from it.Checking relevance for FIROZ IQBAL KHAN VS UNION OF INDIA...
Checking relevance for P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep VS State of Kerala...
P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep VS State of Kerala - 2020 1 Supreme 82 : The legal documents confirm that CCTV footage, when stored as an electronic record on a memory card or pen drive, qualifies as a ''''document'''' under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and must be furnished to the accused under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. While the prosecution is generally required to provide a cloned copy of the electronic record (including CCTV footage) to the accused to ensure a fair trial, the court may allow inspection of the footage without providing a transcript or a copy if privacy concerns or protection of identity are at stake. In such cases, the accused and their legal counsel or an authorized IT expert may inspect the footage in court under strict supervision to prevent copying or tampering. The court emphasized that the accused has a right to inspect the contents of the memory card/pen drive, including video and audio footage, to effectively defend themselves, even if a full transcript is not provided. However, the documents also indicate that a transcript of human voices in the footage is considered highly necessary, especially when the content reveals material contradictions or potential tampering, and the accused may request such a transcript as part of their right to a fair trial.Checking relevance for State of Rajasthan VS Ashok Kumar Kashyap...
State of Rajasthan VS Ashok Kumar Kashyap - 2021 3 Supreme 487 : The legal document confirms that CCTV footage without a transcript can be considered as evidence during the stage of framing a charge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The court emphasized that at this stage, the judge must only determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused by examining the evidence recorded by the police or documents produced before the court. The document specifically references the use of a ''''transcript of conversation'''' between the complainant and the accused as part of the material on record, indicating that such transcripts are one form of evidence considered. However, the absence of a transcript does not preclude the admissibility of other forms of evidence, including visual recordings like CCTV footage. The court held that even in the absence of a transcript, if the material on record—such as CCTV footage—ex facie discloses suspicious circumstances against the accused, it may be sufficient to frame a charge. Therefore, CCTV footage without a transcript can serve as valid evidence for determining whether a prima facie case exists, provided it contains information that supports the existence of all ingredients of the alleged offence.Checking relevance for Vaijinath VS State Of Maharashtra...
Vaijinath VS State Of Maharashtra - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1292 : The court emphasized that CCTV footage, as electronic evidence, must be handled in strict compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. This includes the mandatory preparation of a transcript of the footage at the time of seizure, in the presence of panch witnesses, and the creation of at least three copies of the output. The court specifically noted that the absence of a transcript constitutes a procedural irregularity, and that the Investigating Agency is required to prepare a transcript of the CCTV footage to ensure admissibility and to allow the Court to examine the contents. The court further directed that the transcript must be prepared during the initial seizure, and that failure to do so undermines the evidentiary value of the footage. This establishes that CCTV footage without a transcript is not admissible unless proper procedures under Section 65B are followed, including the preparation of a transcript.Checking relevance for Virendra Pratap Singh S/o Mr. Vishwanath Singh VS State of Chhattisgarh...
Virendra Pratap Singh S/o Mr. Vishwanath Singh VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2016 0 Supreme(Chh) 381 : The legal document confirms that CCTV footage was seized and is part of the case record, but there is a 13-minute gap in the transcript between 9:27:23 a.m. and 9:40:53 a.m., during which no transcription of the CCTV footage was provided. The incident occurred at 9:30 a.m., meaning the CCTV footage from that time period is not transcribed, though the footage itself was seized and is available. The court notes that the lack of a transcript for this period does not negate the existence of the footage, which was under the petitioner''''s control until October 5, 2013.
