In a significant development in the Land Acquisition Corruption Case, the Supreme Court has stepped in to rectify the High Court’s decision. The case, concerning allegations of bribery and corruption against the Deputy Commissioner of the Land Acquisition Section at BDA, took a new turn as the Supreme Court highlighted key aspects regarding electronic evidence admissibility. Stay informed about the latest legal proceedings involving the accused in this landmark case.
Facts
- The High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order rejecting the application for discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC.
- The proceedings against the respondent were quashed by the learned Single Judge on the grounds of inadmissibility of electronic evidence without a Section 65B certificate.
- The prosecution’s inability to supply certification at that stage was considered an afterthought.
- The prosecution’s reliance on other evidence apart from electronic evidence was deemed unconvincing.
- The second accused in the trap proceedings did not implicate the respondent.
- A meeting was arranged between the second accused and a representative of the complainant near the BDA office on 15 November 2012.
- Allegations of bribery and corruption were made against the accused, who was serving as Deputy Commissioner in the Land Acquisition Section of BDA at the material time.
- The complainant lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police on 8 November 2012, suspecting bribery.
- Meetings took place where amounts for settlement of deals were discussed and a trap was set up resulting in the apprehension of the second accused while receiving a bribe.
Also Read: Anticipatory Bail Application in Different Cases: Landmark Judgment by the Supreme Court of India
Arguments
- (i) High Court was in error in requiring a certificate under Section 65B prematurely.
- (ii) Certificate under Section 65B is needed when electronic evidence is presented during trial, not at the stage High Court applied it.
- (iii) Prosecution relies on multiple pieces of evidence implicating the accused, not just electronic evidence from spy camera.
- (iv) High Court dismissed other material without due consideration, hindering prosecution.
- (v) Investigating officer’s use of spy camera was part of a preliminary inquiry as per Lalita Kumari case, to determine if a cognizable offence took place.
- (vi) Use of spy camera fell within exceptions outlined in Lalita Kumari case as a pre-trap mahazar.
Also Read: Supreme Court of India Dismisses Writ Petition on Arms Export to Israel
Analysis
- The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings based on the absence of a Section 65B certificate at the time of filing the charge sheet.
- The prosecution had other materials besides the electronic record on which it relied.
- The investigating officer initiated a preliminary inquiry before the FIR was lodged to determine if a cognizable offense existed.
- The handing over of the spy camera to the complainant prior to the lodging of the FIR was part of this preliminary inquiry.
- The requirement for a Section 65B certificate arises when presenting electronic records as evidence during the trial, not during the investigation stage.
- The failure to produce a Section 65B certificate at the charge sheet stage is a curable defect, not fatal to the prosecution.
- Section 65B(4) is attracted in any proceedings where a statement is desired to be given in evidence
- Requirement of producing a certificate under Section 65B arises when electronic record is sought to be used as evidence
- Preliminary inquiry is essential in cases of alleged corruption by public servant to ascertain if cognizable offence is made out for lodging a first information report
- Events before FIR registration and collection of material before 16 November 2012 are inadmissible as evidence
- Trial court erred in allowing collection of evidence before FIR lodgement based on Lalita Kumari decision
- High Court can intervene under Section 482 of the CrPC if trial court’s decision is inconsistent with principles like in Lalita Kumari case
- Failure to produce Section 65B certificate after seven years warrants discharge under Section 231 of the CrPC
- The judgment referred to as Section 65B includes points 7, 8, and 14.
- It is important to note that the names of the parties involved should be used instead of generic terms such as Respondent No. 1 or Petitioner No. 1.
- The High Court should have considered that the trial court was handling an application for discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC.
- The court must presume the prosecution’s material as true while evaluating it to ascertain if it discloses the necessary elements to constitute the offense.
- The parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Section 239 have been established in various Supreme Court decisions.
Also Read: National Task Force for Healthcare Safety: Ensuring Dignity and Protection for Medical Professionals
Decision
- The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.
- The order of the trial judge dismissing the discharge application was maintained.
- The appeal was allowed in terms of the signed order.
- The judgment and order of the High Court dated 24 April 2017 in Criminal Writ Petition No 3202 of 2017 was set aside.
- The order passed by the trial judge on 5 December 2016 was upheld.
Case Title: STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION BENGALURU Vs. M. R. HIREMATH
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000819-000819 / 2019
