Landmark judgment on appreciation of electronic evidence in cheque dishonour case
Be that as it may, the issue in the case in hand was whether the Complainant had proved that the cheques were issued by the Accused towards legally enforceable debt or liability. In this regard the Complainant-company has relied upon the statement of account of account at Exh.'FF', a print out of electronic records allegedly maintained by the Complainant-company in the course of business. In the case of Anwar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and Ors. Apex Court has held as under:
"Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Section 59 and 65A and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A - opinion of examiner of electronic evidence.
The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India."
66. In the instant case, the accused had challenged the admissibility of the statement at Exh. 'FF' on the ground that CW2 was not the author of the said statement. He had not signed the said statement and had no knowledge about the entries made in the said statement. It was further alleged that CW3, who had issued the certificate purported to be under sub-section 4 of section 65B, was not competent to issue such certificate. It was further stated that the said certificate did not contain the details required under clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section 4 of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
67. The learned Magistrate while rejecting contentions has held that Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act nowhere mandates that the certificate is required to be issued only by the person having access to the system. The learned Magistrate has further held that since CW3 was working as Head IT, it can be gathered and concluded that he had control and lawful access over the entire computer system of the Complainant-company. The learned Sessions Judge has not addressed the question as to whether CW3 was competent to issue the certificate as envisaged under Sub-Section 4 of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Nevertheless, the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the evidence of CW2 and CW3 by holding that the accused have not impeached the credibility of CW2 and that they have not refuted the genuineness of the certificate issued by CW3.
68. It is pertinent to note that, CW1-Vimukt Nayak, the power of attorney of the Complainant Company had neither produced the statement of account nor made any reference to such statement of account. The accused were therefore precluded from cross examining accused No. 1 and eliciting such material as to refute the genuineness of the statement at Exh. 'FF'. A perusal of the certificate shows that the same was signed and certified by Kailash Varodiya and Dattaram Patarpenkar. The Complainant-company has neither examined said Kailash Varodiya and Dattaram Fatarpenkar nor produced any material to show that said Kailash and Dattaram were authorised to sign the said statement on behalf of the Complainant-company.
69. It may be mentioned here that section 65B only relates to the admissibility of electronic records. This amended provision prescribes the mode for proof of contents of electronic records. The very admissibility of electronic records depends upon the satisfaction of the conditions stipulated in the section. Sub-section 4 of section 65B provides that when a statement has to be produced in evidence, it should be accompanied by a certificate containing the details specified in clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section 4 of Section 65B. This certificate must be signed by a person "occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities".
70. CW2, who has produced the statement at Ex. FF, has admitted that he had not obtained the print out at Ex. 'FF. CW2 had not signed the said statement and had admittedly no knowledge of the transaction. CW2 had not produced any document to prove that the said statement was a print out of a computer/electronic records maintained by the Company in the ordinary course of business. It is also to be noted that the statement at EX. FF was not accompanied by a certificate as contemplated under sub-section 4 of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement at Exh.'FF' was therefore not admissible in the absence of such certificate.
71. The Complainant-company had tried to rectify this defect by examining CW3 who was examined at the stage of final hearing. He has produced the certificate purported to be under sub-section 4 of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. No reason has been assigned by the Complainant-company for not producing the said certificate alongwith the statement at Exh.'FF' and this fact leads to an inference that the said certificate was created subsequently to fill in the lacuna in the evidence of CW2.
72. Be that as it may, CW3 has deposed that he is looking after the maintenance of computer system of the Complainant-company since 2008-2009. He has deposed that apart from the maintenance work, he is not allotted any other work relating to information and technology. He has deposed that accounts of the Complainant-company are maintained and prepared by Operation Department and Client Relationship Department. He has admitted that he has not prepared statements of any of the clients of the Complainant-company. He has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the transaction. He has further stated that he had not personally verified the balance, which was due and payable by the accused to the complainant company as on 16.3.2011. He has stated that employee of the Complainant-company used to prepare and enter the statement at the user terminal and the same was saved in the main server. He has stated that he does not know when such data was entered in the user terminal or as to how many persons had entered such data in user terminal. He has stated that he is not a system administrator and that apart from system administrator no other person has access to the server. He has deposed that he had not retrieved the information from the main server in respect of the present transaction.
73. A conjoint reading of evidence of CW2 and CW3 reveals that both these witnesses had no personal knowledge about the transaction. They were not entrusted with the duty of maintaining the records of the company. They had not prepared the statement of account and had no knowledge about the genuineness of the entries reflected in Exh.'FF'. The evidence of CW3 clearly indicates that apart from the system administrator no other person had access to the server. His evidence does not indicate that he was involved in the management of the relevant activities. The evidence of CW3 therefore, does not indicate that he was occupying an official position in relation to the operation of the device and was not entrusted with a duty of the management of the relevant activities. In short, the Complainant Company had failed to prove the source and authenticity of the statement as well as the competency of CW3 to issue the certificate. In this fact situation, the findings of both the courts below are totally erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record and the relevant provisions of law and have thus resulted in miscarriage of justice.
74. It has to be borne in mind that section 65B only relates to the admissibility of electronic records. It authenticates the genuineness of the copy/computer printout and thus absolves the parties from producing the original. This section only makes the computer output admissible on complying with the requirements of the section. It does not prove the actual correctness of the entries and does not dispense with the proof or genuineness of entries made in such electronic records. Furthermore, there is no presumption regarding the genuineness of the entries in electronic records. Hence, it was necessary for the Complainant Company to prove the correctness of the entries. In the instant case, the witnesses examined by the complainant did not have any personal knowledge regarding the entries made in the said statement at Exh. 'FF' and were therefore not competent to depose about the correctness of the entries.
75. It is also to be noted that section 34 of the Evidence Act stipulates that the entries in account books regularly kept in course of business are relevant piece of evidence and admissible. The section further states that such entries cannot be the sole basis of fixing liability on any person. In the instant case, apart from statement at Exh. 'FF' the complainant company had not produced any other material to prove that the liability of the accused in respect of the amount specified in the subject cheques. Hence, the accused could not have been held guilty of the offence solely on the basis of the said statement.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Criminal Revision Application No. 432 of 2015
Decided On: 14.03.2017
Jaimin Jewelery Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anuja Prabhudessai, J.
Citation: 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 2994
