CRL OP No. 10285 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 10285 of 2026 Prabhu Jaganathan J ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep By Its The Inspector of Police Cyber Crime Division 1 Chennai West, Anna Nagar Chennai - 40 Cr.No.289 of 2024 ..Respondent To set aside the Impugned Order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Honble XI Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet at Crl.M.P.No.10755 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.I.Calvin Jones For Respondent : Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor Order The petitioner/accused facing trial in C.C.NO.561 of 2025 challenging the order dated 10.12.2025 passed in Crl M.P.No.10755 of 2025 permitting the respondent/complainant to produce the screenshots of pictures along with section 65-B certificate. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further at the time of Section 207 proceeding, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10285 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 screenshot copies were served to the petitioner and PW1 and PW2 were examined and both of them were not stated anything about the screenshots. The screenshots are very much available in the court. But later to rectify the same, a petition has been filed to show that the screenshots are not available in the court. Whether it is available in the CD or not is not the requirement of the court. It has to be seen that whether the document is available and it is very much available. Further, there is no section 65B certification and hence, screenshots could not taken in evidence. The trial court had not considered these facts and allowed the petition. To fill up the lacuna in this case, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is facing trial for offence under Sections 509, 354 (c) and 500 IPC read with Section 67 of Information Technology Act. In this case, after completion of investigation, the relied upon documents and statements were supplied to the petitioner. The screenshots form part of the documents supplied. On the day of examination of the PW1 an PW2, screenshot could not be immediately traced and hence, could not be marked. Further 65B certificate not found. He further submitted that the petitioner has also admitted that the screenshots have been served to the petitioner. Further in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, AIR 2020 SC 4908, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clearly held that for marking of primary evidence, no 65B certificate is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10285 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 required and for other cases, 65B certificate can be filed at any time before conclusion of the trial. In this case, only PW1 and PW2 have been examined and now marking of Section 65B certificate could not be objected. Considering the submissions made on either side, this court is of the view that section 65B certificate can be filed at any time before conclusion of the trial. This court finds no reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22-04-2026 nl Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To 1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet. 2.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Division-1, Chennai West, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 10285 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. nl CRL OP No. 10285 of 2026 22-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis