Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aman Panwar, AAG Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR

Key Points: - The certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not required if the electronic record is used as primary evidence; production of the certificate can be a curable defect if the trial is not over. (!) - A certificate under Section 65B can be produced at any stage of the trial if the trial is not over, balancing rights of both parties and avoiding prejudice to the accused. (!) - The prosecution was allowed to recall a witness and produce the 65B certificate under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to prove the CFSL report, as it serves to uphold the truth and is not prejudicial to the accused. (!) (!) - The original electronic devices and the CFSL report dated 29.11.2010 were already on record; the issue was only with the absence of a 65B certificate at the relevant time. (!) (!) - Anwar PV v. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar establish that when electronic records are used as primary evidence, 65B certification is not mandatory; otherwise, it differentiates between original electronic information (primary) and copies (secondary). (!) (!) (!) - The court emphasized that the object of the Code is to arrive at the truth; delay in certificate production should not automatically prejudice the accused if no substantial prejudice occurs. (!)

What is the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B when the certificate is not produced, and whether it can be produced at a later stage under Section 311 Cr.P.C.?

What is the proper stage and discretion for recalling a witness and admitting a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to prove electronic records?

What are the considerations for ensuring a fair trial while allowing late production of a Section 65B certificate and the impact on prejudice to the accused?