Skip to main content

40 Important Judgments on S. 65B Indian Evidence Act


Central Government Act
Section 65B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1[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.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether—
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to 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) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this section,—
(a) infomation shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.]


1) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu : (2005)11 SCC 600 

2) Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)10 SCC 473 

3) Shafhi Mohd. V. State of HP 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 7578 


_*Concept of subcutaneous memory and its relevance:*_

4) Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation ILR (2008) 2 Del 842 


_*Difference between ‘contents’ and ‘truth of contents’:*_

5) Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust of India case AIR 1983 Bom 1  


_*Modalities of proof of digital evidecne:*_

6) Kundan Singh v. State (2015 SCC OnLine Del 13647) 

7) Nidhi Kakkar v. Munish Kakkar (2011 SCC OnLine P&H 2599) 

Jaimin Jewelery Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra  (2017) 3 Mah LJ 691 


_*Modalities of CCTV evidence:*_

9) Bhupesh Tichkule v. The State of Maharashtra1. 


_*Contemporaneous certification:*_

10) Sanju v. State of M.P. 2019 SCC OnLine MP 2070 

11) Kamal Patel v. Ram Kishore Dogne  2016 SCC OnLine MP 938 : (2016) 1 MP LJ 528 


_*Competency to sign the certificate and circumstances when it need not be produced:*_


12) Brajesh Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2016 SCC OnLine MP 8424 

13) Shafhi Mohammad and Ors. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh Supra 



_*Format of Certificate to be made under S.65B of Indian Evidence Act:*_

(It cant be straight jacket for every case. Still a relevant judgment is)


14) ARK Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CRT Shipmanagement Pvt. Ltd.     2007 SCC OnLine Bom 663, (2007) 6 Bom CR 311 


_*Stage for procurement of 65B Certificate - Section 65B does not specify the stage at which the certificate under section 65B is to be filed:*_

15) State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath   (2019) 7 SCC 515 


_*Deficiency of 65 B is a curable defect:*_

16) Nyati Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Rajat Dinesh Chauhan and Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 7578 


_*Stage for objection to the admissibility of documents*_

17) Sonu v. State of Haryana  (2017) 8 SCC 570, (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 663 _*(Cannot be raised in Appeal.)*_

_*E-Evidecne Can’t be used in cross without 65B Certificate.*_

18) X. v. State of Maharashtra  2020 SCC OnLine Bom 143 


_*Applicability of provision of section 65B in proceedings in family court proceedings:*_

19) Pramod E.K v. Louna V.C. 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 165, AIR 2019 Ker 85 


_*Right to obtain mirror image of Hard Drive or E-Evidecne:*_

19) P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala & Anr.21 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1532. 


_*Fate of evidence obtained illegally. Doctrine of fruits of poisonous tree - Not strictly applicable in India:*_

20) Bharati Tamang v. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 578 

_*(- Illegally obtained evidecne is Admissible evidence as long as it is relevant. - Law Commission 94th Report)*_


_*One judgment taking different view in the context of digital evidecne.:*_

21) Anurima v. Sunil Mehta  AIR 2016 MP 112 


_*Exhibiting the document is an administrative act:*_

22) Bama Patil v. Rohidas Arjun Madhavi, (2004) 3 Bom CR 509 (Karnik, J.) 

 “even though a document may be admissible in evidence its probative value may be almost zero”. 

23) State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, (1983) 3 SCC 118, paras 33 and 36 


_*Stages in proof of document:*_

24) Sudir Engg. v. Nitco Roadways Ltd. (1995) 34 DRJ 86,  

25) Walter  D'Souza  v.  Anita  D'Souza,  2014  SCC  OnLine  Bom  1671,  


_*No application required for leading secondary evidence:*_

26) Karthik Bhat v. Niramla Wagh WP/11151/2017 

27) Indian Overseas Bank v. Triokal Textile AIR 2007 Bom 24 


_*Concept on Internal Evidence:*_

28) Mobarak Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay,  AIR 1957 SC 857 


_*Compilation consists of letters written by several authors and if the contents are of not much relevance but has a bearing on the issue then there are following two relevant judgements.*_

29) Jiyajirao Cotton Mils case OOCJ Suit 834 of 1951 Bhima Dhotre v. Pioneer Chemical Co. 

1968 Mah LJ 879 (Para 4) 


_*Summoning author of the letter and related circumstances:*_


30) Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1954 Bom 305 (Single Judge) - Followed in Mohd. Yusuf v. D (DB) AIR 1968 Bom 112. 


_*Discarding the irrelevant and inadmissible portions in the affidavit of evidence and its contents. Law of affidavit of evidence.*_

31) Banganga Judgment Patel J.

(2015) 5 Bom CR 813 


_*Admissibility of document to be used in cross examination:*_

32) Vijay Gupta v. Naresh Gupta. 2016 SCC Online Bom 8659 (4th May 2016 Order)

33) Geeta Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. State, (2009) 2 Mah LJ 410. 


_*Stages for raising objection to the marking of documents and kinds of objections:*_

34) Bipin Shantilal Vs. State of Gujrat (2002)10 SCC 529  (Three Judges Bench)  

35) R V Venkatachalah v. Arulmigu (2003)8 SCC 752 


_*Full bench judgment summarising the law of documentary evidence:*_

36) Rasiklal Ghia v. Sibodh Mody (2008)5 BomCR 519. 


_*Evidence by Power of Attorney:*_

37) (2010) 10 SCC 512 


_*Applicability of evidence act in Arbitration proceedings :*_

38) Rashmi Housing Case 

(2015)2 Bom CR 697 


39) Jugmohan Singh Gujral 

2004(1) ArbLR 212 Bom 


40) Sahyadri Earthomovers  

2011(6) Bom CR 393


Popular posts from this blog

Nehru खानदान की सच्चाई , Basic Knowledge of Nehru Family!

  Truth Of Nehru Surname  मोतीलाल नेहरू की 5 पत्नियाँ थीं। (1) स्वरूप रानी (2) थुसु रहमान बाई (3) मंजुरी देवी (4) एक ईरानी महिला (5) एक कश्मीरी महिला नंबर 1- स्वरूप रानी और नंबर 3- मंजुरि देवी को लेकर कोई समस्या नहीं है। दूसरी पत्नी थुसू रहमान बाई के पहले पति मुबारक अली थे। मोतीलाल की नौकरी, मुबारक अली के पास थी। मुबारक की आकस्मिक मृत्यु के कारण मोतीलाल थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह कर लिये और परोक्ष रूप से पूरी संपत्ति के मालिक बन गये। थुसु रहमान बाई को मुबारक अली से 2 बच्चे पहले से ही मौजूद थे- (1) शाहिद हुसैन (2) जवाहरलाल, मोतीलाल द्वारा इन दोनों बच्चों शाहिद हुसैन और जवाहरलाल को थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से अपना बेटा कह दिया गया। प्रासंगिक उल्लेख:- जवाहरलाल की माँ थुसू रहमान बाई थी, लेकिन उनके पिता मुबारक अली ही थे। तदनुसार थुसू रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से मोतीलाल, जवाहरलाल नेहरू के पालक पिता थे। मोतीलाल की चौथी पत्नी एक ईरानी महिला थी, जिसे मुहम्मद अली जिन्ना नामक एक बेटा था मोतीलाल की 5 नंबर वाली पत्नी एक कश्मीरी महिला थी, यह मोतीलाल नेहरु की नौकरानी थी। इसको शेख अब्दुल

Supreme Court VC Video Conferencing Link

  ALL DAYS THIS LINKS ARE WORKING....NO CHANGES Seen. PLZ DONT MISUSE IT Video conferencing link common for all days. S.NO. COURT NO. COURT LINKS 1. Court No. 1 2. Court No. 2 3. Court No. 3 4. Court No. 4 5. Court No. 5 6. Court No. 6 7. Court No. 7 8. Court No. 8 9. Court No. 9          9A Court no.10   10. Court No. 11 11. Court No. 12 12. Court No. 13 13. Court No. 14

Maharashtra Health Directory Mobile and Email address DHO, Civil Surgeon , Directors

  Contacts Ministers Back Minister Name Contact No. Mail ID   Prof.Dr.Tanajirao Sawant Hon. Minister Public Health and Family Welfare     (O)     (F) Minister of State Name Contact No. Shri.  Hon. State Minister, Public Health 22886025 (O) 22023992 (F) Officers Name Contact No. Mail ID Project Director, Maharashtra State Aids Control Society 24113097/5619/5791   (O) Shri Shivanand Taksale (I.A.S.) CEO, State Health Assurance Society 24999203/204/205 (O)   Mantralaya State Public Health Department,  Mantralaya, Mumbai Telephone - 22610018 Officers Name Department / Section Telephone No in the workshop Expanded Mobile No Email IDs Subject Shri.Sanjay Khandare (I.A.S) Principal Secretary-1. 22617388 22632166 22617999 (F)             204         PA 216  Anti 211      Shri. N.Nawin Sona Secretary-2 22719030 / 22719031   202 / 244 PA 250   Shri. Shivdas Dhule  (PA Shri. Mohite

Bhopal Police Officers Inspectors Mobile Number and E mail ID


यहां किराए पर बीवी मिलती है एक साल के लिए

  आज  दुनिया में शायद ही कोई क्षेत्र होगा जहां औरतों ने अपने हुनर से पहचान न बनाई हो। फिर भी भारत के कई जगहों में महिलाओं से जुड़ी कुप्रथाएं आज भी चली आ रहीं है। कुछ प्रथाएं तो ऐसी हैं, जिनके बारे में सुनकर हर कोई हैरत में पड़ जाए कि क्या सच में ऐसा होता है! आज हम आपको मध्यप्रदेश और गुजरात के कुछ गावों में मानी जाने वाली एक ऐसी प्रथा के बारे में बताने जा रहे हैं, जिसे सुनकर आप भी दंग रह जाएंगे। यहां किराए पर दी जाती है बीवी दरअसल, भारत के मध्यप्रदेश में एक ऐसी जगह है, जहां महिलाओं को किराए पर अपनी बीवी बनाने का रिवाज है।   जी हां, मध्यप्रदेश के शिवपुरी गांव में 'धड़ीचा प्रथा' काफी प्रचलित है।   इस प्रथा के मुताबिक अमीर आदमी इस गांव की लड़कियों को बतौर बीवी किराए पर ले सकते हैं लेकिन यह बंधन जिंदगीभर का नहीं होता।  यह सौदा महीने या साल के हिसाब से होता है। चाल-ढाल से लेकर खूबसूरती भी देखते हैं लोग यहां आने वाले लोग महिलाओं और लड़कियों की चाल-ढाल और खूबसूरती को भी देखकर सौदा करते हैं। इसके बाद एक साल के लिए उसकी शादी करा कर विदाई दी जाती है। अब प्रशासन के खौफ के कारण यह दबे-छुपे

CISCE ICSE ISC Board Is Unrecognized Board By Maharashtra , Delhi , HRD , MP Etc.No Approval From Any State....

  CISCE IS OPERATING FAKE BOARD WITHOUT ACT OF PARLIAMENT OR STATE OR BY ANY EXECUTIVE ORDER.  NOT APPROVED BY ANY STATE OR CENTRAL CHEATING PUBLIC SINCE LAST 60 YEARS! In India  Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE)is operating ICSE/ISC public examination without valid Approval/recognition . The ICSE and ISC is unrecognized Education board which is not established by any act or executive order. All the state boards and Central boards are established by act of state or executive orders . The certificate of ICSE and ISC have no legal value in absence of law. Since 1959 the CISCE is running education board without any legal backing. CISCE is one of the society registered at Delhi and have power to open school , library, etc but not education board.  CISCE has given declaration/ affidavits at various high courts that it is merely a society and no act or executive order is passed in favour of CISCE till date. Allahabad High Court Pavitra vs Union Of India And 2 Ors

Supreme Court Clerks Are Deciding Maintainability of Petition Not Judge

  CORRUPTION IN SUPREME COURT REGISTRY , NOT GIVING DIARY NUMBER AND REJECTING PETITION WITHOUT QUOTING APPROPRIATE SECTION OF SCR 2013. AS PER SC ORDER ONLY JUDGE CAN DECIDE MAINTAINABILITY OF PETITION Supreme Court of India P. Surendran vs State By Inspector Of Police on 29 March, 2019 10. Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench. Dear Mr. MANUBHAI HARGOVANDAS PATEL  I am hereby directed to inform you that the document uploaded by you vide Ref. id No. 3754/2023 in view of prayers (a) and (b) the Writ

Rs 1.69 Cr Expense Done For VC at Bombay High Court But No VIDEO CONFERENCE Link For Public

 ONLY JUSTICE GS PATEL PUBLISHING VC LINK IN CAUSELIST जनता का पैसा बर्बाद हो रहा है. कोई नहीं चाहता की जनता का पैसा और समय बचे।  ADVOCATES CANNOT ATTEND MULTIPLE COURTS DUE TO NO VC OPTION,PARTY IN PERSONS ALSO SUFFERING  सेवा की जगह तानाशाही कर रहे है JUDGES , बिना गद्दी के राजा है , सुप्रीम कोर्ट से कुछ नहीं सीखना चाहते .... At Delhi High Court VC link s are available at Causlist, at SC it is sent by Email. At MP HC IT department provide it on request . RTI Information 1. VC Guidelines or any for Bombay High Court with copy  2. Online Mentioning Email ID  before Hon\'ble Courts guidelines copy. 3. Total Amount of Expense Done for VC facility  at High Court between Jan 2020 to Dec 2022 by State or any. THIS COST FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING IS INCLUDING ALL BENCHES OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT Public Information Officer Bombay High Court: Shri Pankaj A. Patki 2665857 2662488 Presiding Officer 8208405880(M) __ __________________

Limitation Act Applicable In Contempt Petition For Condonation Of Delay

  NINE YEARS DELAY CONDONE BY COURT AS RESPONDENT STILL DOING CONTEMPT . Cites 18 docs - [ View All ] Section 20 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Article 215 in The Constitution Of India 1949 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 The Special Courts Act, 1979 Pallav Sheth vs Custodian & Ors on 10 August, 2001 Citedby 0 docs S.G.L. Degree College vs Sri Aditya Nath Das, Ias And ... on 24 October, 2018 Smt. Kusumbai W/O Harinarayan ... vs M/S Shreeji Builders And ... on 14 November, 2019 Yogesh Vyas vs Rajesh Tiwari on 31 July, 2019 Sunil Kumar vs Girish Pillai on 31 July, 2019 Pramod Pathak vs Heera Lal Samriya & Others on 13 December, 2021 Madras High Court M.Santhi vs Mr.Pradeed Yadav on 11 April, 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.04.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM CONTEMPT PETITION No.377 of 2018 M.Santhi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Mr.Pradeed Yadav, I.A.S, Secretary to Government, School Education (HSE-1)

Supreme Court Rules are Really Approved By President Of India?