KARUPPASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been filed praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2218 of 2016 in C.C. No. 88 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, dated 04.07.2014.

(2.) On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant / P.W.1, an FIR in Crime No.36 of 2013 was registered against the Petitioners / A1 to A4, for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 323 of IPC., r/w. Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The first petitioner herein is the son of the 2 and 3 petitioners and brother of the 4th and 5th petitioners herein. The 4th and 5th Petitioners are daughters of 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein. Investigation was over and final report has been laid and is pending as C.C.No.88 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Srivilliputhur, for adjudication. This Court also in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.6175 of 2016 had directed the trial Court to complete the trial in C.C.No.88 of 2014, within a period of six months and based on that, the trial Court has accelerated the trial proceedings. P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and questioning the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C was also completed. Arguments were heard on 31.05.2016 from the accused side. The petition in Cr.M.P.No.2218 of 2016 has been filed on 15.06.2016, under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. for receiving one compact disc, which is the important documents of P.W.1 in the evidence. An affidavit of one Karpagavalli / P.W.1 is also filed along with the said petition, which signed by one person on behalf of the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhur. The said petition has not been signed by the concerned Prosecutor or the Inspector of Police of the respondent. However, the trial Court has allowed the petition in its order, dated 04.07.2016 permitting to mark the said C.D., as an exhibit in the evidence of P.W.1/ defacto complainant, after hearing both sides. The present Revision is filed by the petitioners / accused persons to call for the records and to set aside the order, dated 04.07.2014, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2218 of 2016 in C.C.No.88 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners would contend that entertaining the said petition filed on behalf of the respondent under Sec. 311 of Crimial P.C. by the learned Magistrate is not maintainable in law; that the proposed Compact Disc (CD), which is ordered to be received in evidence of P.W.1 is not having the mandatory certificate required under Sec. 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of electronic evidence, as held by the Apex Court. The above said so called petition was filed at the fag end of the case, after hearing the arguments of the accused and the petition is also highly belated one without any valid reason; that the defacto complainant have not even mentioned in her complaint or evidence as well as in the final report filed by the investigating officer about the possession of the said Compact Disc and that such proceedings in receiving the alleged C.D., in the evidence on the petition, which is not even filed by the Investigation officer is unknown to criminal rules of practise and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.