Sayar Singh S/O Shri Hanuman Singh Shekhawat vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, Sayar Singh, who was an Inspector in the Anti-Evasion unit of CGST, Alwar, Rajasthan, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the trial Judge. The trial Judge had refused the petitioner's request for a clone copy of a seized Compact Disc (CD). The trial Judge noted that original transcripts of the CD's content were prepared under the supervision of a Competent Authority, as mandated by Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. A copy of these transcripts was already provided to the accused-petitioner along with police papers under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

Held

The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity with the impugned order passed by the trial Judge. The Court held that the trial Judge had correctly applied the provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The reasoning was that original transcripts of the seized CD's content were prepared under the supervision of the Competent Authority, fulfilling the evidentiary requirements for electronic records. Furthermore, a copy of these transcripts had already been supplied to the accused-petitioner along with the police papers under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The Court concluded that the petitioner's request for a clone copy of the CD was not legally tenable under the circumstances, as the necessary documentation and information had been provided. The ratio decidendi is that compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act by providing certified transcripts, coupled with the supply of these transcripts under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., is sufficient, and a clone copy of the electronic record itself is not mandatory if the transcripts meet the legal standards.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge erred in refusing the petitioner's prayer for a clone copy of the seized CD, considering the provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that a clone copy of the seized CD should have been provided to enable a proper defense. The reliance on transcripts prepared under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, without providing the original electronic record (CD), was contended to be insufficient. Respondent's (State of Rajasthan) Contention: The State, through the Public Prosecutor, likely supported the trial Judge's order, arguing that the requirements of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act were met by providing the transcripts prepared under the supervision of the Competent Authority, and that the original CD was part of the seized material. The State would have argued that the supply of transcripts along with police papers under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. fulfilled the procedural requirements.