2016 S C M R 2084
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 539-B---Power of local inspection---Scope---Section 539-B, Cr.P.C. gave power to a trial Judge or a Magistrate to visit and inspect the place of occurrence or any other place after due notice to the parties, if necessary for properly appreciating the evidence given during the trial---Such power could not be delegated by the trial Judge to any other subordinate or even a subordinate judicial officer to visit the place of occurrence as a Commission.
During cross-examination upon the investigating officer, in order to rebut the site plan, the trial Court on a request by the defence side, under section 539-B, Cr.P.C. appointed a Magistrate as a Commission to visit the place of occurrence in order to ascertain the authenticity of the site plan.
Section 539-B, Cr.P.C. gave power to a Judge or a Magistrate to visit and inspect the place of occurrence or any other place after due notice to the parties, if necessary in the opinion of the trial Court, for properly appreciating the evidence given during the trial. He was also required to record a memorandum without unnecessary delay regarding his observation at such inspection but this power could not be delegated by the trial Judge to any other subordinate or even a subordinate judicial officer. Under section 539-B, Cr.P.C., the trial Judge had no power to appoint another person to visit the place of occurrence as a Commission because the report submitted by a local Commission could not be equated with the memorandum mentioned in section 539-B(1), Cr.P.C. The trial Judge could inspect the place of occurrence but alone and he cannot delegate his powers under section 539-B, Cr.P.C.
Trial Judge, in the present case, assumed the jurisdiction of an investigating officer and impugned order passed by him would amount to favour one party and prejudice the case of other party. Power under section 539-B, Cr.P.C. could not be a substitute for collection of evidence. Power of inspection under section 539-B, Cr.P.C could not be interchanged for investigation. Impugned order by trial court was not only prejudicial to the other party but also detrimental to the fairness of the procedure provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, apart from being without jurisdiction.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 164---Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage---Evidentiary value---Mere producing of CCTV footage as a piece of evidence in court was not sufficient to rely upon the same unless and until it was proved to be genuine---In order to prove the genuineness of such footage it was incumbent upon the defence or prosecution to examine the person who prepared such footage from the CCTV system.
Under Article 164, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 trial court may allow production of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage but it was incumbent upon the defence to prove the same in accordance with the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Defence had to produce, the concerned person who had prepared the footage from the C.C.T.V. system in order to prove the same. Adverse party was to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the said footage.
Mere producing of CCTV footage as a piece of evidence in court was not sufficient to rely upon the same unless and until it was proved to be genuine. In order to prove the genuineness of such footage it was incumbent upon the defence or prosecution to examine the person who prepared such footage from the CCTV system.
0 Comments