MAHENDRA KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision has been filed u/S. 397 / 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 31/10/2014 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ujjain in Special Case No. 13/14.

(2.) FACTS of the case, as stated, reveal that a case has been registered against the present applicant for an offence u/Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/S. 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code. After registration of the First Information Report and completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and the applicant has been put to trial for the offences, as stated above. It has been further stated that at the time of investigation, the Investigating Agency has filed some documents along with the charge sheet which are Computer Printouts and it has been alleged that in regard to the same, the mandatory requirement of Sec. 65 -B of the Indian Evidence Act, has not been complied with. It has been further stated that during the pendency of the trial, the prosecution has examined one witness namely; Ajay Kumar Gupta (PW 3) and he is a witness to the documents which are Computer Printouts. He is a witness to the panchnama transcript and seizure of CD and pre -trap panchnama. It has been further stated that an objection was raised on behalf of the applicant regarding non compliance of the provision of Sec. 65B of the Evidence Act and the same has been turned down. It has been argued before this Court that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the documents which have been got exhibited on account of non compliance of Sec. 65B of the Evidence Act, deserves to be expunged. He has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others (Civil Appeal No. 4226 / 2012) and the same is also on record.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.