In Brief
A public servant was accused of corruption based partly on a spy camera recording. The High Court quashed proceedings, holding that without a Section 65B certificate at the time of the charge-sheet, the electronic evidence was inadmissible and the case must fail. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the certificate must be produced only when electronic evidence is led at trial, not before, and that such a defect is curable. The Court also found that the preliminary inquiry using the spy camera before FIR registration was lawful and that independent corroborating evidence existed. It reinstated the trial court's rejection of the discharge application, allowing the case to proceed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.