Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80828 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31263 of 2024 Applicant :- Jahangeer And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shaheen Bano,Shahnawaz Khan,Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hirdesh Kumar Yadav,Sushma Yadav Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Heard Mr. S. Kamal Akhtar Khan, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party 1 and Mr. Hirdesh Kumar Yadav,, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2. Perused the record. Applicants Jahangeer And Another. who are named as well as charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P, C,. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court no.5, Rampur in Session Trial no.199 of 2019 (State Vs. Jahangeer and others) arising out of Case Crime no.628/2018, under section 302 IPC, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur pending in the court of Additional Session Judge, Court no.5, Rampur, so that justice be done. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Session Trial no.199 of 2019 (State Vs. Jahangeer and others) arising out of Case Crime no.628/2018, under section 302 IPC, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur pending in the court of Additional Session Judge, Court no.5, Rampur, during the pendency of the present 482 application before this Hon'ble Court, so that justice be done, otherwise applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or may pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." It transpires from record that during pendency of trial, Investigating Officer filed an application dated 16.02.2024 (paper no. 58 Kha) to accept the supplementary case diary alongwith the records appended thereto on the record of aforementioned Sessions Trial. This application filed by the Investigating Officer was vehemently opposed by the defence. According to defence, since the charge sheet had already been submitted by the Investigating Officer upon which cognizance has also been taken, therefore, no further investigation could have been conducted suo-moto by the Investigating Officer. It was further contended that no prior permission of Court was obtained in terms of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. to conduct further investigation. The trial is at an advanced stage. The prosecution evidence is over. Statements of accused have already been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Similar application was filed by the prosecution earlier, which came to be rejected by court below vide order dated 05.04.2023. In view of above, the subsequent application regarding the same prayer is not maintainable. Irrespective of above, court below allowed the aforementioned application by means of the impugned order on the findings that present case is not a case of further investigation. By means of the supplementary case diary, the prosecution is not bringing on record new evidence which has been collected by it. Referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Karnaktka Vs. T. Naseer, 2023 SCC Online SC 1447 court below observed that certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act can be filed at any stage. Since by means of the supplementary case diary, the certificate under Section 65B (papers 59/1 to 59/3) and the certification issued by the Mobile Company regarding the I. D. affixed on the Mobile Numbers of the accused i.e paper no. 59/4 to 59/7 have been brought on record, therefore, the same are liable to be accepted on the record of Sessions Trial. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State opposite party 1 and Mr. Hridesh Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2 submit that the order impugned in present application if perfectly just and legal and therefore not liable to be interfered with by this Court. They submit that by means of the impugned order, court below has only accepted the certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as well as the certification granted by the Mobile Company regarding the I.D. used for the Mobile Numbers of the accused, which were placed before court below by mans of supplementary case diary. As such, no evidence with regard to the facts investigated subsequently were brought on record. Referring to the three Judges Bench judgement of the Supreme Court in Arjun Pandirao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 1 SCC 1, it is urged by the learned A.G.A. that the certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act pertaining to the electronic evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation can be submitted at any stage of the proceedings. Furthermore, the other documents, which have been brought on record, through the supplementary case diary pertain to the certification given by the Mobile Company regarding the I.D. affixed on the Mobile Numbers used by the ac accused. It is then contended by the A.G.A. that mere filing of a document in a case, shall not become evidence till it has been proved. Accordingly, court below has granted opportunity of filing rebuttal evidence to the accused. In view of above as well as the provisions contained in Section 465 Cr.P.C., the order impugned can be sustained in the interest of justice. On the above premise, they submit that since the order impugned cannot cause any prejudice to the applicants Court below has not committed any illegality in accepting the supplementary case diary on the record of concerned Sessions Trial. It is thus urged that in view of above, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. As such, present application is liable to be dismissed. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 HSM Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad