IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NOS.48605-48606 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. VEENA B.C.
W/O A SREENATH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. A SREENATH S/O. SRI. H V ASWATH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 36/2, 1ST FLOOR, 17TH KILOMETER, TALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE 560062. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: S B KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANK SECURITIES AND FRAUD CELL, NO. 36, 2ND FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560032.
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DISCARDING THE EVIDENCE OF SRI.VENKATA RAMI REDDY VIDE ANNEX-D WHO HAS DEPOSED AS PW2 ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION IN THE CASE SPL.C.C.NO.137/2014 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BANGALORE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners are aggrieved by the ruling given by the XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Prl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru city in Spl.C.C.No.137/2014 admitting certain documents in evidence.
2. In the course of examination of PW-2, namely, a Retired Assistant Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad, the prosecution produced and marked 18 documents as Exs-P3 to P18. Marking of these documents were objected by the petitioners/defence counsel on the ground that the documents sought to be produced by the prosecution were not the originals and they were secondary documents; secondly, the documents are not properly certified by the concerned officer of Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad; thirdly, the originals are not available. These objections were overruled by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the documents sought to be produced by the prosecution were certified by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad, who was incharge of Record section and that he was authorized to certify the documents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the course of cross-examination of PW-2, it is elicited that Exs-P3 to P18 including the documents attached to Ex-P19 were down-loaded from the website maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India and based on this evidence, it is argued that without certification as required under section 65B of the Evidence Act, documents marked on behalf of prosecution at Exs-P3 to P18 were inadmissible in evidence.
4. The contention urged by the petitioners, in my view, is not legally tenable. The main objection raised by the petitioners before the trial court was that the proposed documents(Exs-P3 to P18) were not properly certified by the Registrar of Companies. Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for making of certified copies and the admissibility of those documents. It reads:
76. “Certified copies of public documents.— Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.—Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies."
.
5. It is not in dispute that the documents tendered in evidence were collected by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation and the trial court has also found that these documents were certified in accordance with section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and accordingly, they were admitted in evidence. As long as it is shown that they were certified copies of the original issued in accordance with section 76 of the Evidence Act, it is immaterial whether the same were downloaded from the website before subscribing the seal and signature of the authority competent to certify those copies. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of answers elicited in the course of cross-examination of PW-2, all these documents were required to be certified under section 65B of the Evidence Act has no merit. It is not the case of either of the parties that the documents were electronic records, on the other hand, documents produced before the court were certified copies of public documents maintained in the office of the Registrar of Companies. In that view of the matter, the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is unsustainable, consequently, the petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioners to argue before the trial court regarding the evidentiary value of the documents produced in evidence.
Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-