Bengaluru blasts: Section 65B certificate for electronic evidence can be shown at any stage of trial, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that a certificate verifying the authenticity of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act can be produced at any stage of the trial regardless of any delay in doing so. [State of Karnataka vs T Naseer and ors].A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal added that a fair criminal trial does not mean the process is fair only to one side.."A certificate under Section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by the prosecution is not an evidence which has been created now. It is meeting the requirement of law to prove a report on record. By permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Act at this stage will not result in any irreversible prejudice to the accused. The accused will have full opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution," the Court explained..The observations came while setting aside a 2018 Karnataka High Court order that had not allowed the prosecution in the 2008 Bengaluru blasts to produce the said certificate on the ground of delay. .The 2008 Bengaluru blasts had left one person dead and 20 others injured.In 2018, the Karnataka High Court upheld the trial court's refusal to accept a Section 65B certificate submitted by the prosecution in relation to certain electronic evidence in the case. The electronic evidence recovered during the probe had been sent the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL) in Hyderabad, which in turn prepared its report on the same in 2010.In 2017, the trial court refused to accept the CFSL report since Section 65B certificate was not submitted along with it..At the time, the prosecution argued that such a certificate was not necessary as the original electronic devices had been produced as primary evidence. However, the matter reached the High Court after the trial court refused to allow the production of the Section 65B certificate on grounds of delay..After the High Court affirmed the trial court order, the State government moved a plea before the Supreme Court for relief. .The top court relied on its earlier decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal to reiterate that such a certificate can be produced at any stage of the trial.The bench found that the High Court's approach was erroneous and also noted that the defence had also objected to the lack of a certificate after a delay, only in 2017."It cannot be inferred that there was delay of six years in producing the certificate. In fact, report received from CFSL, Hyderabad on the basis of the contents of electronic devices dated 29.11.2010 was already placed before the Trial Court on 16.10.2012," the Supreme Court further observed..The Karnataka government's appeal was, thus, allowed, and the prosecution was allowed to produce the Section 65B certificate. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial accordingly. ."Fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it should be fair to one of the parties. Rather, the object is that no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished", the Supreme Court added..Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar appeared for the Karnataka government. Advocate Balaji Srinivasan appeared for accused..Supreme Court allows 2008 Bengaluru blasts accused Abdul Nazir Maudany to stay in Kerala.[Read Judgment]