IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 679 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.1064/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- S.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, VILAYILMOOLA, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SHEELARANI, D/O.DIVARAJAN, DWARAKA NO.1, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KADAKKAVOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.679 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C.No.1064/2004 on the file of J.F.C.M- I, Attingal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the order dated 12.04.06 in a petition filed by the accused for receiving in evidence a Compact Disc allegedly containing the recorded telephonic conversation between the complainant and the accused with regard to the transaction in question. 2. According to the petitioner, the C.D should not have been received in evidence without complying with the six safeguards laid down in Ram Singh & others vs. Col.Ram Singh (AIR 1986 SC 3) as reiterated in Pootholi Damodaran Nair v. Babu V.K. (2005(2) KLT 707. 3. Receiving a CD in evidence does not mean that it is admitted in evidence or that the opposite party cannot assail probative value and even genuineness of the document. In Pootholi Damodaran's case also, the CD in question had been Crl.M.C.No.679 of 2008 2 received in evidence. It was only when permission was sought to play the C.D that objection was raised. Merely because the CD has been received in evidence it does not mean that the opposite party is precluded from assailing the probative value of that electronic record. It is still open to the petitioner to contend that the document should not be relied on with out the safeguards in that regard have been satisfied. Hence I am not inclined to interfere with the order. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj /True Copy/ P.A To Judge