6 Charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13 1 d read with section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9 The learned Single Judge has quashed the proceedings against the respondent on the ground that i in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence of the electronic 3 Criminal Petition No 7562/2012, Writ Petition No 11252/2013 and Writ Petition No 20394/2013 record based on the spy camera is inadmissible in evidence ii the prosecution is precluded from supplying any certification at this point of time since that would be an afterthought and iii the case of the prosecution that apart from the electronic evidence, other evidence is available, is on its face unconvincing.
The trial judge dismissed the application by an order dated 5 December, 2016.
The first two petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on 26 February 2013, leaving it open to the respondent to pursue his remedies for seeking a discharge from the proceedings.
8 The first respondent then filed a discharge application under section 239 of the CrPC before the Special Judge, Bengaluru.
3 The respondent was at the material time serving as Deputy Commissioner in the Land Acquisition Section of Bangalore Development Signature Not Verified Authority2.
4 The case of the prosecution is that on 6 November 2012, the companyplainant attempted to meet the respondent accused number1 by whom the file was to be placed before the Denotification Committee.
5 On 16 November 2012, a companyplaint was lodged before the Lokayukta and a first information report was registered.
7 The respondent instituted three successive petitions under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka 3 for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
The prosecution alleges that on 15 November 2012 the companyplainant met the respondent at about 7.30 pm near the BDA office.
The respondent instituted a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC which has resulted in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 27 April 2017.
A companyplaint was lodged with the Lokayukta Police on 8 November 2012 apprehending that a bribe would be asked for by the second accused.
A charge sheet was filed after investigation.
On 12 and 13 November 2012, a meeting took place with the second accused who is stated to have informed the representatives of the companyplainant of the amount which will be charged for the settlement of the deal.
BDA had acquired certain lands for the formation of a layout on Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.05.13 162021 IST Reason the outskirts of Bengaluru.
The learned judge then held that the second accused who was the subject of the trap proceedings was number shown to have named the respondent as being instrumental in the episode.
It is alleged that though the companyplainant was number allowed to meet the respondent, he met his driver through whom he got to know that such cases were being mediated by the second accused, an advocate purporting to act as the agent of the respondent.
The High Court dismissed the third petition.
The companyversation between the companyplainant and the respondent was recorded on the spy camera in the companyrse of which, it has been alleged, there was some discussion in regard to the amount to be exchanged for the companypletion of the work.
The companyplainant moved the companyrt for 1 CrPC 2 BDA denotification of the lands following which, a direction had been issued.
Subsequently, it is alleged that a trap was set up and the second accused was apprehended while receiving an amount of Rupees five lakhs on behalf of the respondent towards an initial payment of the alleged bribe.
This order was questioned in revision before the High Court.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Leave granted.
Accordingly, the companyplainant made an application to BDA for denotification of the lands.
The revision was rejected on the ground of maintainability.
On this finding the proceedings have been quashed.
10 Assailing the companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court, Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the High Court was manifestly in error in holding that a certificate under Section 65B was warranted at this stage ii a certificate under Section 65B would be required to be produced at the stage when electronic evidence is produced in the companyrse of evidence at the trial and hence the stage at which the High Court sought to apply the provision was premature iii the prosecution is relying, apart from electronic evidence pertaining to the spy camera, on other material which prima facie shows the involvement of the first and the second accused iv without companysidering the nature of that evidence, the High Court prevented the prosecution from placing reliance on such material on the basis of a bald averment that it did number appear to be companyvincing v in handing over the spy camera to the companyplainant and the process which followed by recording what transpired at the meeting with the respondent on 15 November 2012, the investigating officer was only companyducting a preliminary inquiry of the nature that is companytemplated by the decision of this Court in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh 4 and vi the purpose of the preliminary inquiry was only to enable the prosecution to ascertain whether a companynizable offence was made out.
