Certificate u/s 65b can be given by mobile owner?

Memory card on which recording was originally done should be considered primary evidence and pen drive as secondary evidence. Memory card itself needs no 65B Certificate. If you intend to file a printout of the contents of the memory card, you need to file a Certificate under Section 65B. I don't understand the point of filing another USB drive having the same contents as the original memory card...if that USB drive is only as a copy given to other party, there is no need to give any 65B certificate with that.

Having said that, knowing the 'proficiency' of our judiciary with electronic records, my suggestion would be place a printout of the contents on Court record along with a 65B certificate anyways to save your evidence from any future technical loopholes.

CBI v . Dev Raj 
CC No. : 07/2013
Delhi District Court
Judgment: 31 May, 2016

"(M)emory cards have been duly proved during the trial. Since, all these memory cards are the original memory cards, in which the conversations were directly recorded, these memory cards are the 'primary evidence', and no certificate under the Provisions of Section 65­B of the Indian Evidence Act, is required to be furnished by the prosecution to prove these 'documents'."

For signing the Certificate, you are in fact THE best person to sign such a certificate being the person under whose control and possession the eletronic record was.

And you don't need to be present for filing such certificate (at filing: no, at evidence: yes, of course and be ready to be grilled on it); in a High Court filing is done across the Registry even by Court Clerks and in District Courts, the Advocate alone can file it across the Bench.

EDIT: Well I had to read your query some four times to get the hang of it. You mean the Lab johnnies tested the contents as contained in the USB drive? In that case, I'd suggest you file the USB drive also (in addition to the memory card) with a 65B Certificate under your signatures, Affidavit of the technicians; if possible, try to give some unique identifying feature on the USB drive, probably something like a unique Company logo or something so your witness may be ready to testify that he can identify the USB drive as the one used for testing (and btw, is the technical guy really ready to depose in Court?).

Originally posted by : Dhiraj Srivastava
	Dear Experts, I have got forensic testing done of electronic evidence stored in pen drive copied from original Memory Card (before submission to court) from M/s Truth Labs and we have given one copy of the same to respondent advocate also. Representative of M/s Truth Labs will now submit the report with affidavit on 21/02/2017.  Since original memory card (not original phone in which recording done) already submitted in the court, the data in pen drive amounts to secondary evidence (if I am not wrong). Now please advise:- 1. Whether I should file certificate u/s 65 B along with the affidavit of M/s Truth Labs. 2. Whether petitioner (Me) who has made electronic evidence using his mobile can sign the certificate? Beause in case the lawful owner of computer/device is me. 3. Whether my presence is mandatory in court for submission of this certificate or my counsel can file on my behalf. Please note that I have already submitted affidavit with evidence and cross examination also completed.  Thanks in advance for your advise. Regards, Dhiraj

The above advise by great public ID is theoretical and not practical.  I advise you not to follow it.

I had read your query and replied to it some time back.

All this is unwanted exercise.

You could just have submitted whatever you had to court at the evidence stage.

Now that you have already submitted the sh*te, you need to do it one more time.

You have simply been taken for a ride by your advocate, if at all it was your advocate suggested you to go to lab etc.  Or you are oversmart which is not required in this case.

All in all a futile exercise this is.  In case your lawyer suggested you to do all this, better change your lawyer is my advise.  All the best.

Originally posted by : Helping Hand !
	yada yada bla bla

Dearest Handjob, its your prerogative to diss me and nobody can or should stop you from talking; after all, sometimes we need to let a fool expose his ignorance by letting him talk. Cheers

@ Author 

65B. Admissibility of electronic records:   (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this 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 (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.   (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely: -   (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;   (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;   (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and   (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.

65 B talks only about admissability 

Although accepted by the courts they have to be submitted with the headers but they are difficult to prove . alternatively a certified copy from the service provider has to be provided to the court but    Amendements in the evidence act 2000 and passing of the information technology act 2000The condition for admissibility of electronic records as per section 65 B is as follows The computer was regularly used by the person having lawfull control over the use of the computer . 1.       The information required or derived was regularly used fed into the computer  I the ordinary course of the said activities . 2.       The computer was operating properly or if not did not affect the electronic record or the accuracy of the record and its contents . Section 88 A states that an email sent  , by the originator is the same as the one that is received The entire emphasis is on the computer . and not on the data that is retrieved from it .Email data is not stored on the computer but on the server and now that torrents have come into use the data exists only on the internet and not on any specific  computer .The second problem is accepting email as analogues compared to ordinary mail .Mail is not stolen diverted or lost but spontenously deletes itself due to virus.Between one letter and the next the sorting office deltes itself and relocates to another country .( Hence jurdiscation ) A mail is altered its envelope changed the post mark tampered  and no physical evidence is produced as the ip addres may vary from place to place .A single letter is delivered to multiple recipients and hence may appear different to two different viewers .Hence  Its is very difficulty  to prove emails as evidence although accepted .


 

Dear Experts,

Thanks for deliberating on the issues. The section 65B and its usage is bit unknown to most of the advocates practicising in small citites who are not very much connected to internet. I am having one of the well known advocate of the city but I have to update him with the new developments through intertnet. Searching internet and advise from experts like you provides some valuable information..

Thanks once again.