Summary
Absence of a Section 65B certificate when the charge-sheet was filed did not justify quashing the corruption prosecution at the discharge stage; certification was required when the electronic record was tendered in evidence. The High Court also wrongly dismissed other prosecution material without proper consideration. Providing a spy camera to ascertain whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence was a permissible preliminary inquiry on these facts. The order refusing discharge was restored.
Issues
- Whether lack of a Section 65B certificate with the charge-sheet was fatal.
- Whether the spy-camera exercise before the FIR was impermissible investigation.
- What scrutiny was appropriate when considering discharge.
Provisions considered
- Section 65B, particularly subsection (4), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The certificate requirement arose when the electronic record was sought to be produced in evidence at trial; absence at charge-sheet filing did not warrant quashing. (¶¶ 13–16, 22)
Held
- Section 65B governed admission of the electronic record in evidence. The High Court prematurely treated absence of certification at the charge-sheet stage as fatal and wrongly foreclosed later compliance. (¶¶ 14–16, 22)
- The charge-sheet identified other material relied upon by the prosecution. The High Court’s bare assertion that it was unconvincing did not justify discarding it. (¶¶ 17, 22)
- The pre-FIR spy-camera exercise sought to ascertain whether the information disclosed a cognizable corruption offence. It was a preliminary inquiry consistent with Lalita Kumari, rather than commencement of investigation. (¶ 19–22)
- At discharge, prosecution material was to be assessed at face value for ingredients of the alleged offences. A mini-trial or an assessment whether conviction was warranted was impermissible. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order quashing the proceedings set aside; trial judge’s 5 December 2016 order dismissing the respondent’s discharge application maintained.