Electronic records cannot be admitted into evidence unless the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are satisfied, including obtaining a certificate in terms of Section 65-B(4) of the Act.

ORDER :

The present Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the docket Order dated 31.03.2021 in H.M.O.P.No.274 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

2. Heard Mr.Palanki Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel on behalf of Mr.K.V.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Despite service of notice, none entered appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

3. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent. He filed O.P.No.274 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking annulment of marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent on the ground of adultery. In the said O.P, the 1st respondent filed counter and contesting the same. The petitioner along with the main O.P filed certain documents including Original Residence Certificate dated 15.08.2018, Originals of 10 photos of respondents 1 & 2 with C.D and e-mail screen shot. As the said documents were not marked, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.40 of 2020 to recall him and to mark the said documents as exhibits. In the said application, the 1st respondent filed a counter, but was not present at the time of hearing of the said I.A. The learned Trial Judge after considering the matter and perusing the counter was pleased to allow the said application by an Order dated 17.12.2020.

Subsequently, at the time of marking the documents, the counsel for the 1st respondent raised objection for marking the same and the Court below by the impugned docket Order held that the petitioner is not entitled to recall himself and to mark the documents mentioned in I.A.No.40 of 2020. The learned Trial Judge inter alia opined that in order to receive the photographs with C.D and e-mail online copy, the petitioner has to establish the requirement contemplated under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, but the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions contemplated under Section 65-B and also failed to furnish the Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The learned Trial Judge also opined that the petitioner failed to establish the mode of acquisition of 10 Photographs with C.D and e-mail online copy and as such failed to establish the admissibility of the documents. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner/husband.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the Order of the learned Trial Court constitutes failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that I.A.No.40 of 2020 seeking to recall the petitioner and mark the originals of the documents was allowed on 17.12.2020 and despite the same, erred in not allowing marking of the documents, which are crucial for establishing the petitioner’s case on the premise that the petitioner failed to establish the admissibility of the documents. He further submits that the learned Trial Court erred in coming to a conclusion that in order to receive the photographs with C.D and e-mail online copy, the petitioner is required to comply with the conditions for marking of the documents as contemplated under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. He submits that the learned Trial Court erred in holding that the petitioner failed to establish the admissibility of documents, even before marking of the same. He also submits that the learned Trial Court at least should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to fulfill the conditions contemplated under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and mark the documents, but the learned Trial Court failed to consider the matter in a proper perspective. He further submits that the learned Trial Court had committed a gross error in opining that the petitioner failed