Kobad Ghandy is facing trial in the case for alleged offences punishable under UAPA and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Delhi Police has been allowed by a court to place on record the certificates of electronic evidence relied upon by it in a case in which Maoist ideologue Kobad Ghandy is facing trial for allegedly trying to set up a base for the banned outfit CPI (Maoist).
The court allowed the submissions of Special Cell of Delhi Police saying electronic evidence relied upon by prosecution was "relevant" and its admissibility would be considered at the final stage after production of the certificates under the Indian Evidence Act.
"Submission was made (by accused) that electronic record relied upon would still be inadmissible even after production of such a certificate. At this stage, I may only note that electronic record relied upon is relevant," Additional Sessions Judge Reetesh Singh said.
"Admissibility of the same after production of certificates under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act will be considered at the final stage. For the reasons recorded above, this application is allowed," the court said.
It also allowed the submission of police seeking to summon two senior cops, who were earlier examined as prosecution witnesses in the case, for their re-examination to prove the certificates under the Indian Evidence Act.
The court has posted the matter for prosecution evidence on February 8.
Mr Ghandy, 65, is facing trial in the case for alleged offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court had earlier framed charges against co-accused Rajender Kumar under various sections of the IPC in the case.
During the arguments on the plea filed by the police, the prosecutor said that certain electronic records produced in evidence were not supported with certificates under the Indian Evidence Act, and in its absence, the electronic records would not be read in evidence.
Senior advocate Rebecca John, who appeared for Mr Ghandy, opposed the plea saying it was moved belatedly after recording of the prosecution evidence had concluded and the matter was at the stage of recording of statements of accused.