- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9575 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI G.MUNINDRA KUMAR MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. EAGLESIGHT MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (BTV KANNADA NEWS) OWNER-BTV KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT NO.32/1-2 CRESCENT TOWER, CRESCENT ROAD NEXT TO GOLDFINCH HOTEL HIGH GROUNDS BENGALURU. PRESENT ADDRESS: AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT 68, 1ST STAGE 5TH PHASE WOC ROAD BENGALURU – 560 044. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MOHAN KUMAR A., S/O LATE ASHWATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.265, 2ND BLOCK 6TH MAIN, R.T.NAGAR Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 BENGALURU – 560 032. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MURTHY D.NAIK, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI AKSHAY R. HUDDAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2026 SUO-MOTO PERMITTING THE COMPLAINANT TO DISPLAY THE PEN DRIVE AND TO RECTIFY THE 65 B CERTIFICATE IN C.C.NO.30428/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ACJM. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court seeking to quash the order dated 01-07-2026 passed by the concerned Court permitting the complainant to display pen drive and to rectify the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, in the proceedings in C.C.No.30428 of 2021. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 2. Heard Sri S Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Murthy D Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the accused and the respondent, the complainant in C.C.No.30428 of 2021. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 120B of the IPC. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter before the concerned Court. What drives the petitioner/accused before this Court is a strange circumstance. The learned Magistrate after hearing the matter at length, reserves the matter for judgment on 12-06-2026. When the matter comes up before the Court on 01-07-2026, strangely without pronouncing the judgement, the concerned Court suo motu permits the complainant to display a compact disc and to rectify the 65B certificate in C.C.No.30428 of 2021. The order of the learned Magistrate reads as follows: “While preparing for judgment it is noticed that, The contents of Ex.P.9 CD has not viewed/displayed at the time of recording evidence and Ex.P.10 the Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act is not from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 the person who has downloaded the contents of the Ex.P.9. The Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that it is the duty of the counsel for the complainant to display the CD. However it ought to be seen that the CD was produced at the pre-cognizance stage and thereafter on 11-05-2023 the counsel for the complainant filed a memo to adopt the sworn statement for the stage evidence before charge. And thereafter on an application filed by the Complainant, the stage was corrected and plea of the accused recorded and on 21-08-2025 was examined and the contents of the CD was not displayed. It ought to be seen that it is the duty of the Court at the time marking of Electronic records should have displayed to the witness and marked the said Exhibit. Considering error occurred on the part of the Court it is appropriate to provide an opportunity to the PW1 to speak about the said CD. The another defence was that the Certificate Under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was Exhibited as Ex.P.10. However it appears from the evidence of the PW1 that he was not downloaded said contents of the CD by relying upon the decision Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal in Civil Appeal Nos.20825- 20826 of 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Reported) wherein it was held that defective Certificate could be rectified and further appears from the record that the accused persons during the Course of cross examination of PW1 has displayed the pendrive which is marked as Ex.D.6. However they did not produce the Certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Considering the above curable defects, an opportunity has to be provided to the respective parties. Hence call on for compliance by 04-07-2026.” The action of the learned Magistrate has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. The matter having been heard at length and reserved for its judgment on 12-06-2026, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 Magistrate could not have listed the matter on 01-07-2026 for the purpose of directing the complainant to rectify all the lacunae that the Magistrate found while wanting to pass the judgment. The said jurisdiction admittedly was not available to the concerned Court. There was no warrant for the concerned Court to either call the accused or the complainant and seek to rectify all the lacunae that are found in the proceedings before passing the judgment. In that light, the order that directs the complainant to rectify all the mistakes or play the compact disc now, after the matter is posted for judgment, while finding it difficult to write the judgment, cannot be sustained in law. 4. The petitioner and the respondent have argued the matter at length before the concerned Court and the matter was posted for judgment. Therefore, the concerned Court shall now proceed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law, while taking the 65B certificate that is filed before the Court as it is trite law that the 65B certificate can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v. T. NASEER1, while referring to an earlier 1(2024) 16 SCC 729 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 judgment rendered in the case of ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR v. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1, observes that 65B certificate can be produced at any stage of the trial, and has held as follows: “…. …. …. 7. The facts of the case have been briefly noticed in the preceding paragraphs. Serial bomb blasts took place in Bangalore on 25-7-2008 which shocked not only Bangalore City or the State but the entire country, as in such terror attacks it is only the innocents who suffer. The investigation had to be scientific. At the instance of Accused 3, electronic devices such as one laptop, one external hard disc, 3 pen drives, 5 floppies, 13 CDs, 6 SIM cards, 3 mobile phones, one memory card and 2 digital cameras, etc. were recovered and seized. These were sent for examination to the CFSL, Hyderabad. Report was received on 29-11-2010. The same was submitted before the trial court on 16-10-2012 and sought to be proved at the time of recording of statement, M. Krishna, Assistant Government Examiner, Computer Forensic Division, CFSL, appeared as PW 189. The accused vide application dated 6-3-2017 objected to taking the report dated 29-11-2010 in evidence in the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Act. Immediately, thereafter a certificate dated 27-4- 2017 was got issued under Section 65-B of the Act and an application was filed under Section 311CrPC seeking to recall M. Krishna (PW 189) and to produce the aforesaid certificate in evidence. The trial was still pending. The learned trial court without appreciating the legal position in this regard had dismissed the application. The order [State of Karnataka v. T Naseer, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1718] was upheld by the High Court. It was primarily for the reason of delay in producing the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act. …. …. …. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 10. In State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath [State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380] , this Court after referring to the earlier judgment in Anvar case [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] held that the non-production of the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act is a curable defect. Relevant para 16 thereof is extracted below: (M.R. Hiremath case [State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 380] , SCC p. 523) “16. The same view has been reiterated by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Ravindra V. Desai [Union of India v. Ravindra V. Desai, (2018) 16 SCC 273 :(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 225] . The Court emphasised that non-production of a certificate under Section 65-B on an earlier occasion is a curable defect. The Court relied upon the earlier decision in Sonu v. State of Haryana [Sonu v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570 : (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 663] in which it was held: (Sonu case [Sonu v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570 : (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 663] , SCC p. 584, para 32) ‘32. … The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Applying this test to the present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the court could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency.’ ” (emphasis in original and supplied) 11. Coming to the issue as to the stage of production of the certificate under Section 65-B - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 of the Act is concerned, this Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar case [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 587] held that the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below: (SCC pp. 52 & 55, paras 56 & 59) “56. Therefore, in terms of general procedure, the prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which reliance may be placed to an accused before commencement of the trial. Thus, the exercise of power by the courts in criminal trials in permitting evidence to be filed at a later stage should not result in serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused. A balancing exercise in respect of the rights of parties has to be carried out by the court, in examining any application by the prosecution under Sections 91 or 311CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Depending on the facts of each case, and the court exercising discretion after seeing that the accused is not prejudiced by want of a fair trial, the court may in appropriate cases allow the prosecution to produce such certificate at a later point in time. If it is the accused who desires to produce the requisite certificate as part of his defence, this again will depend upon the justice of the case — discretion to be exercised by the court in accordance with law. *** 59. Subject to the caveat laid down in paras 52 and 56 above, the law laid down by these two High Courts has our concurrence. So long as the hearing in a trial is not yet over, the requisite certificate can be directed to be produced by the learned Judge at any stage, so that information contained in electronic record form can then be admitted and relied upon in evidence.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 (emphasis supplied) …. …. …. 14. From the aforesaid facts, 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. In fact, the stand of the prosecution was that when the original electronic devices were already produced and marked MOs, there was no need to produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act. Still, as a matter of abundant caution, the same was produced that too immediately after objection was raised by the accused against the production of CFSL report prepared on the basis of the electronic devices seized. 15. 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. 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 65-B 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. This is the purpose for which Section 311CrPC is there. The object of the Code is to arrive at the truth. However, the power under Section 311CrPC can be exercised to subserve the cause of justice and public interest. In the case in hand, this exercise of power is required to uphold the truth, as no prejudice as such is going to be caused to the accused.” (Emphasis supplied) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35832 CRL.P No. 9575 of 2026 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 01-07-2026 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.30428 of 2021 stands quashed. (iii) Since the matter is at the stage of passing the judgment, the concerned Court will now pass necessary orders bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73