65(B) Evidence Act

In the age of digitisation and increasing reliance on computerised records in judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court has held that the requirement of a certificate to make an electronic evidence admissible is not mandatory "wherever interest of justice so justifies".

The top court's clarification on section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which deals with admissibility of electronic evidence in court proceedings, will have an impact on criminal trials, where an increasing number of call details, CCTV footage, mobile video recordings and CDs are being relied upon.

Interpreting section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, a bench of Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit said the provision should be applied only when such electronic evidence is presented by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate.

Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act says that electronic records needs to be certified by a person occupying a responsible official position for being admissible as evidence ..
 

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/courts-can-rely-on-electronic-records-without-certificate-supreme-court/articleshow/62777759.cms

 

 

As per the illustrated query!

In Arjun v. Kailash, it was noted that Section 65B(1) differentiates between the ‘original’ electronic record, which is contained in the computer in which the information is first stored – and the secondary copies that are made from the primary electronic record. For instance, in the present case, the original electronic record would be the computer of the Election Commission in which the video footage is first stored. The CDs where the content of the video recording is copied shall constitute the secondary copies of the electronic record. It was held that a certificate under Section 65B(4) shall have to be obtained only when the secondary copies of the electronic record are produced before the Court.

However, the Production of a certificate shall not be necessary when the original electronic record is produced. The original electronic record can be adduced directly as evidence if the owner of the computer/tablet/mobile phone steps into the witness box and establishes that the device where the information is first stored is owned/operated by him. If the “computer” where the electronic record was first stored happens to be part of a “computer network” or “computer system” (as defined under the Information Technology Act, 2000), and it is not possible to bring such a network/system physically to the Court, then secondary copies can be produced along with the certificate stipulated by Section 65B(4).

Further, it was held that it is incorrect to conclude that difficulties may arise while obtaining the certificate, as there are provisions in the Evidence Act (Section 165), the Civil Procedure Code (Order XVI) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 91 and Section 349) – which empower the Court to order for the production of any document or thing during the trial. It was accordingly stated that a person can in any case make an application to the Judge to order for the production of any ‘document’ that would constitute electronic evidence if he is unable to obtain the certificate under Section 65B(4).

Hope it clarifies the issues!
Regards
Minakshi Bindhani