How to prove electronic evidence in cheque dishonour case?
The statement of account which is part of Exhibit 39-colly
is electronic record. Hence, PW1 had issued a certificate under
Section 65B of the Evidence Act which is also a part of Exhibit
39-colly. PW1, in the said certificate, certified that the statement
of account attached to his certificate was true print out of the
electronic record maintained by the complainant in the computer
installed at the office in Chase International. He certified that the
computer system of the complainant had been under the control
of responsible officers including himself, at all times and that
such record maintained in the computer had been maintained in
the regular course of business of the complainant and the
information in the prints submitted herein was derived from the
information regularly fed in the computer system of the
complainant. Such certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence
Act 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 (whichever is appropriate)
so that the electronic record produced can be taken as
admissible evidence. PW1 was only a private consultant and as
already discussed above, he had no personal knowledge of the
transaction between the parties. The evidence on record shows
that PW1 was not in a responsible official position in relation to
operation of the computers of the complainant. He was not the
author of the log sheets or the invoices and even had no free
access to the computer or the computerised record of the
complainant which were admittedly maintained under due
password known to the concerned office staff and all the
documents from Exhibit 31 to Exhibit 44 were furnished to PW1
by office staff of the complainant and were not in his possession.
In such circumstances, PW1 could not have issued the said
certificate and the said statement of account could not be said to
have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2014.
M/S. SHRADHA SHIPPING CO. PVT. LTD.,
Vs
M/S. ADHITHRI TRADING COMPANY,
CORAM :- U. V. BAKRE, J.
Date:- 25th November, 2014.
Citation; 2015 CRLJ(NOC)483 BOM
is electronic record. Hence, PW1 had issued a certificate under
Section 65B of the Evidence Act which is also a part of Exhibit
39-colly. PW1, in the said certificate, certified that the statement
of account attached to his certificate was true print out of the
electronic record maintained by the complainant in the computer
installed at the office in Chase International. He certified that the
computer system of the complainant had been under the control
of responsible officers including himself, at all times and that
such record maintained in the computer had been maintained in
the regular course of business of the complainant and the
information in the prints submitted herein was derived from the
information regularly fed in the computer system of the
complainant. Such certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence
Act 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 (whichever is appropriate)
so that the electronic record produced can be taken as
admissible evidence. PW1 was only a private consultant and as
already discussed above, he had no personal knowledge of the
transaction between the parties. The evidence on record shows
that PW1 was not in a responsible official position in relation to
operation of the computers of the complainant. He was not the
author of the log sheets or the invoices and even had no free
access to the computer or the computerised record of the
complainant which were admittedly maintained under due
password known to the concerned office staff and all the
documents from Exhibit 31 to Exhibit 44 were furnished to PW1
by office staff of the complainant and were not in his possession.
In such circumstances, PW1 could not have issued the said
certificate and the said statement of account could not be said to
have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2014.
M/S. SHRADHA SHIPPING CO. PVT. LTD.,
Vs
M/S. ADHITHRI TRADING COMPANY,
CORAM :- U. V. BAKRE, J.
Date:- 25th November, 2014.
Citation; 2015 CRLJ(NOC)483 BOM
https://www.lawweb.in/2015/11/how-to-prove-electronic-evidence-in.html