In Brief
A Deputy Commissioner of the Bangalore Development Authority was accused of corruption related to land denotification. The High Court quashed the case because the prosecution lacked a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for spy camera recordings at the charge-sheet stage. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the Section 65B certificate is required only when electronic evidence is produced at trial, not earlier. The defect is curable. Additionally, the Court upheld that a preliminary inquiry before FIR registration is permissible in corruption cases to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. The Court also found independent non-electronic evidence supporting prosecution. It remitted the case to proceed toward trial."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.