Judgment Dated: July 14, 2020
ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR …Appellant Vs. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL AND ORS. …Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 20825-20826 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2407 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3696 OF 2018
Supreme Court held that:
The certificate required under
Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by
way of electronic record. Oral evidence in the
place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a
mandatory requirement of the law. Section 65B(4) of the
Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if
lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. (Para 59).
Where the requisite certificate has
been applied for from the person or the authority concerned, and the
person or authority either refuses to give such certificate, or does not reply
to such demand, the party asking for such certificate can apply to the Court
for its production under the provisions aforementioned of the Evidence Act,
CPC or CrPC. (Para 45)
A certificate under 65B(4) is unnecessary if if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the “computer” happens to be a part of a “computer system” or “computer network” and it becomes impossible to physically bring such system or network to the Court, then the only means of providing information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4). (Para 72)
