STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. T. NASEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Vide order,[dtd. 27/1/2022.] passed by the High Court,[High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.] in Criminal Petition No. 2585 of 2019 filed by the appellant-State, an order dtd. 18/1/2018 passed by the Trial Court,[XLVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of CBI Cases) City Civil Court, Bangalore.] was upheld. Vide the aforesaid order an applications, [S.C. Nos. 1480/2010 & 1481/2010.] filed by the prosecution under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C.,[The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.] seeking recall of M. Krishna (PW-189) and permit the prosecution to produce the report and the certificate under Sec. 65B of the Act, [The Indian Evidence Act, 1872] was rejected.

(3.) Genesis of the trial is that in a serial bomb blasts which took place in Bangalore on 25/7/2008, one woman lost her life whereas several persons were injured. Several FIRs were registered at Madivala, [ Criminal Case No. 483/2008.] Koramangala, [Criminal Case No. 297/2008.] Byatarayanapura,[Criminal Case No. 314/2008.] Kengeri, [ Criminal Case No. 117/2008.] Ashokanagar, [Criminal Case No. 260/2008 and 261/2008.] Sampangirama, [Criminal Case No. 92/2008.] and Adugodi, [Criminal Case No. 217/2008.] Police Stations for the offence punishable under Ss. 120B, 121, 121A, 123, 153A, 302, 307, 326, 337, 435, 506 and 201 of the IPC, [The Indian Penal Code, 1860.] and Ss. 3 to 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Ss. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, Ss. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Ss. 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. During the course of investigation certain electronic devices such as one Laptop, one external Hard Disc, 3 Pen Drives, 5 floppies, 13 CDs, 6 SIM cards, 3 mobile phones, one memory card and 2 digital cameras etc. were seized at the instance of accused no.3 i.e., Sarafaraz Nawaz@ Seju @Hakeem. The original electronic devices were submitted before the Trial Court along with the additional chargesheet dtd. 9/6/2010. The Trial Court vide order dtd. 7/4/2017 ordered that the CFSL Report dtd. 29/11/2010 with reference to the electronic devices was inadmissible in evidence in the absence of a certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Act. Though, according to the prosecution, the original devices being already on record (as a primary evidence), there was no requirement of a certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Act. Still, as a matter of abundant caution, a certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Act was obtained and when M. Krishna (PW-189) was further examined in chief on 27/4/2017, a certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Act was sought to be produced. Objection was raised by the counsel for the accused. Vide order dtd. 20/6/2017, the Trial Court opined that the certificate issued under Sec. 65-B of the Act produced on 27/4/2017 was not admissible in evidence. Thereafter an application was filed in the court to allow the prosecution to recall M. Krishna (PW-189) and to produce the certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Act in evidence. The application was rejected by the Trial Court holding the same to be delayed. The order of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge before this Court.