Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Alok Sharma, J.
SHAIWALI PALIWAL - Appellant
Vs.
AXIS BANK LIMITED - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 1364 of 2017
Decided On : 28-11-2017
For the Appellant : R.K. Daga, Adv.
For the Respondent:Ashok Mehta Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhant Jain, Adv.
The certificate requisite under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 for admissibility of electronic records in evidence need not necessarily accompany the electronic record when filed. It can be subsequently filed, and an affidavit filed by the plaintiff with regard to the compliance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 65-B of the Act of 1872 in respect of the multiple electronic records can be treated as the requisite certificate.
Headnote:
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65-B(4) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SUBSEQUENT FILING - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 65-B(4) - CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS - REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATE - TIMING OF FILING CERTIFICATE - SUBSEQUENT FILING PERMISSIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff challenged the admissibility of certain electronic records in a suit questioning her termination from service. The trial court upheld the defendant's objections, holding that the certificate requisite under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 must accompany the electronic record when filed and cannot be subsequently filed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the certificate requisite under Section 65-B(4) for admissibility of electronic records in evidence need not necessarily accompany the electronic record when filed. It can be subsequently filed, and an affidavit filed by the plaintiff with regard to the compliance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 65-B of the Act of 1872 in respect of the multiple electronic records can be treated as the requisite certificate.
Issues: 1. Whether the certificate requisite under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 must necessarily accompany the electronic record when filed? 2. Whether a certificate in support of a document of electronic record should be simultaneously issued and a subsequent certificate is impermissible?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not indicate that the certificate requisite under Section 65-B(4) for admissibility of electronic records in evidence should be obtained or signed only simultaneous to the downloading of the electronic record and its conversion into a document admissible in evidence. 2. The Apex Court's observation in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others that the document/s of electronic record should be accompanied by a certificate does not necessarily mean that the certificate must be produced along with the electronic record sought to be relied upon before the court or that if not so produced along with the document/s of electronic record, evidence in regard thereto would be completely shut out. 3. A certificate requisite under Sub-section 4 of Section 65-B of the Act of 1872 can be subsequently produced in support of the electronic record for the purpose of such evidence being admitted before a Court.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed and set aside the trial court's order upholding the defendant's objections to the admissibility of the electronic records and dismissed the objections.
Alok Sharma, J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter 'plaintiff') and perused the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 allowing the objections of the respondent-defendant (hereinafter 'defendant') to the admissibility of certain electronic records in the course of the trial in the suit laid by the plaintiff questioning her termination from service by the defendant.
2. Mr. R.K. Daga appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the trial court untenably has taken a narrow and restricted view of the Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1872') in holding that the certificate requisite under Section 65 -B (4) of the Act of 1872 must necessarily accompany the electronic record/documents when filed and if the certificate is subsequently filed it will be of no avail. Mr.R.K. Daga relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan [2016 (2) RLW 945 (Raj.)] to submit that the certificate requisite under Section 65-B (4) for admissibility of electronic record as evidence in a trial could be subsequently filed. Emphasis was laid on Para 15 in Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan which reads as under:-
15. Although, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the requisite certificate must accompany the electronic record pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence when the same is produced in evidence, but in my view it does not mean that it must be produced along with the charge sheet and if it is not produced along with the charge sheet, doors of the Court are completely shut and it can not be produced subsequently in any circumstance. Section 65-B of the Evidence Act deals with admissibility of secondary evidence in the form of electronic record and the procedure to be followed and the requirements be fulfilled before such an evidence can be held to be admissible in evidence and not with the stage at which such a certificate is to be produced before the Court. One of the principal issues arising for consideration in the above case before Hon'ble Court was the nature and manner of admission of electronic records.
3. Mr. R.K. Daga further submitted that the judgment in Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan (supra) was followed in the case of State of Rajasthan through the Special Public Prosecutor v. Sri Ram Sharma and Others reported in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4383/2016 decided on 02.09.2016 by this court. It was submitted that in the instant case subsequent to the computer generated documents (electronic record) taken on record by the trial court on an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff giving out the Email Ids from which she downloaded the concerned documents also stating the computer used for the process. It was submitted that such affidavit partook the character of the certificate requisite under Section 65-B (4) of the Act of 1872 and based thereon the evidence in electronic form was admissible. The trial court has in the circumstances erred in upholding the objections of the defendant pertaining to the admissibility of such electronic record.
4. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Jain appearing for the defendant submitted that for electronic records to be admitted in evidence under Section 65-B of the Act of 1872, it is imperative that the requisite certificate in terms of Sub-section 4 thereof accompanies the said documents purporting to be a downloads of the electronic record. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others, 2014 (4) Civil Court Cases 535 (S.C.) : [(2014) 10 SCC 473]. Referring to the Para 17 of the aforesaid opinion of the Apex Court. Mr.Ashok Mehta submitted that for electronic records to be admissible in evidence under Section 65-B of the Act of 1872 they have to be accompanied by a certificate requisite under Sub-Section 4 issued on the same date. Reliance was also pla
