DILIP MALI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under section 397 r/w section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.304/2012 dated 18.06.2015 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge refused to admit the original cassettes and CD submitted by the accused as defence evidence on the ground that certificate of competent authority was not produced by the counsel. The learned Sessions Judge also refused to issue a direction that the cassettes and CD be examined by an expert and submit his report to ensure that the CD and original cassettes were not tampered with and contains original recording.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on judgment of Hon'lble Apex Court in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors,2014 SAR(Civ) 1174 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under section 65B(2), the following conditions has to be fulfilled and also under section 65B(4), the following conditions are set aside:- :-

(3.) If the provisions of section 65 of Evidence Act is concerned under section 65B(2), in this respect the provisions of section 65B(4) may be reproduced here :-