STATE OF KARNATAKA versus T. NASEER @ NASIR @ THANDIANTAVIDA NASEER @ UMARHAZI @ HAZI & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 06-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 230 : 2023 INSC 988
230
CASE DETAILS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
v.
T. NASEER @ NASIR @ THANDIANTAVIDA NASEER @ 
UMARHAZI @ HAZI & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3456 Of 2023)
NOVEMBER 06, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The High Court rejected the applications 
ﬁ led by the prosecution u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-189 
and to permit the prosecution to produce the report and the certiﬁ cate u/s. 
65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 311 – Evidence Act, 1872 
– s.65B – A serial bomb blasts took place – Certain electronic devices 
were seized – Trial Court held electronic devices inadmissible in 
evidence – Thereafter, an application was ﬁ led in the court to allow 
the prosecution to recall PW-189 and to produce the certiﬁ cate u/s. 
65B of the Act in evidence – Application rejected by the Trial Court 
holding same to be delayed – High Court upheld the order of the Trial 
Court – Propriety:
Held: The courts below had gone on a wrong premise to opine that 
there was delay of six years in producing the certiﬁ cate whereas there was 
none – The matter was still pending when the application to resummon PW-
189 and produce the certiﬁ cate u/s. 65B of the Act was ﬁ led u/s. 311 of the 
Cr.P.C. – In fact, report received from CFSL on the basis of the contents 
of electronic devices dated 29.11.2010 was already placed before the Trial 
Court on 16.10.2012 – It was only vide order dated 07.04.2017 that the 
report prepared on the basis of electronic devices was refused to be taken on 
record by the Trial Court in absence of certiﬁ cate issued u/s. 65B – It was 
during the examination in chief of PW-189 that the report of CFSL dated 
231
29.11.2010 was sought to be exhibited – When the aforesaid witness was 
further examined in chief on 27.04.2017, the report u/s. 65B was produced 
to which objection was raised by the counsel of the defence and vide order 
dated 20.06.2017 the Trial Court declined to take the certiﬁ cate, issued u/s. 
65B of the Act, on record – It was thereafter that an application was ﬁ led 
u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-189 and produce the certiﬁ cate 
u/s. 65B of the Act on record – The same was rejected by the Trial Court 
– From the aforesaid facts, it cannot be inferred that there was delay of six 
years in producing the certiﬁ cate – A certiﬁ cate u/s. 65B 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 certiﬁ cate u/s. 
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. [Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473: [2014] 11 SCR 399; 
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 
1: [2020] 7 SCR 180; State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, 2019 (7) SCC 
515: [2019] 8 SCR 713 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.3456 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2022 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRLP No.2585 of 2019.
Appearances:
Aman Panwar, AAG, Shivam Singh Baghel, D. L. Chidananda, Advs. 
for the Appellant.
Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Sukanya Joshi, Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, 
Anand B. Menon, Radha Shyam Jena, Advs. for the Respondents.
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. T. NASEER @ NASIR @ THANDIANTAVIDA 
NASEER @ UMARHAZI @ HAZI 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1.  Leave granted.
2.  Vide order1 passed by the High Court2 in Criminal Petition No. 2585 
of 2019 ﬁ led by the appellant-State, an order dated 18.01.2018 passed by 
the Trial Court3 was upheld. Vide the aforesaid order an applications4 ﬁ led 
by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.5, seeking recall of M. 
Krishna (PW-189) and permit the prosecution to produce the report and the 
certiﬁ cate under Section 65B of the Act6 was rejected. 
3.  Genesis of the trial is that in a serial bomb blasts which took place 
in Bangalore on 25.07.2008, one woman lost her life whereas several persons 
were injured. Several FIRs were registered at Madivala7, Koramangala8, 
Byatarayana
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.