SHRI RAJARAM GIRI NAIK Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for respondent no. 3, waive service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, who is the defendant in Civil Suit No. 3/2008 is challenging the order dated 16.01.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji, whereby the objection raised by the petitioner, to the production of a compact disc (CD) on record (which is at Exhibit -12 in the contempt proceedings), during the evidence of PW -1, Ramchandra Alvenkar, has been rejected. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the said CD being the secondary evidence of electronic record, it is necessary to enclose a certificate as required under Section 65 -B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act, for short), before it can be produced and proved in evidence.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and Others, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473, in order to submit that in the absence of the said certificate, the CD could not have been taken on record or exhibited. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the trial Court has observed that the said document is already on record in the contempt petition (at Exhibit -12). He points out that even in the contempt petition, an objection was raised for the production of the CD on account of non -compliance with Section 65 -B(4) of the Evidence Act.