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.]

Citations

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