Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
K. Loganathan - Appellant
Versus
A. Elango - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 1020 of 2023 & C.M.P. No. 7384 of 2023
Decided On : 02-11-2023
Electronic Records - Admissibility of CDRs as Evidence - Section 65B Certificate - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. - Vikram Jesudasen and Ors. Vs. Suresh Kumar and Ors. - [Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, admissibility of electronic records, production of 65B certificate, mandatory requirement]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money with subsequent interest against the respondent. The petitioner sought to receive and take on record Compact Disc and Call History/Transcription of the Teleconversation as additional evidence. The respondent contested the suit, alleging misuse of a blank promissory note and filing a private complaint against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the admissibility of the Compact Disc and Call History/Transcription of the Teleconversation as additional evidence. It referred to the requirement of a Section 65B certificate for admissibility of electronic records and highlighted the recent decisions in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Vikram Jesudasen cases, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the certificate and its curable defect.
Issues: The key issue was whether the Compact Disc and Call History/Transcription of the Teleconversation could be received as additional evidence in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the production of a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory for producing Call Detail Records (CDRs) as evidence in the suit. However, it also clarified that the non-production of the certificate is a curable defect and can be produced at any time before completion of the trial.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the order of the Trial Court in dismissing the application for non-production of the Section 65B certificate. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Key Points: - The court held that production of a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory for producing Call Data Records (CDRs) as evidence in the suit. (!) - The non-production of the Section 65B certificate is a curable defect and can be produced at any time before completion of the trial. (!) - The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the trial court’s order dismissing the application for non-production of the 65B certificate. No costs awarded. (!) - The judgment references Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Vikram Jesudasen as guiding authorities on the mandatory nature and proper timing of producing 65B certificates. (!) (!) - The 65B certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility of electronic records, but the stage at which it must be produced can be at the discretion of the trial judge, with potential reopening of evidence to cure the defect. (!) (!) - If the original electronic record is produced, the 65B certificate may be unnecessary; otherwise, 65B compliance with the procedure remains required. (!)
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.4795 of 2022 by the Learned XXIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Learned XXIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.4795 of 2022.
2. The petitioner / plaintiff had originally filed a suit for recovery of money with subsequent interest. The respondent had contested the suit by way of filing a written statement and thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 to receive and take on record (i) Compact Disc and (ii) Call History / Transcription of the Teleconversation, as plaintiff's side documents. The said I.A. was dismissed by the Trial Court, against which, the present CRP has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is a cousin to the petitioner. Based on the close relationship, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.12,75,000/- (Twelve Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand) for his personal and business needs from the petitioner on various dates over a period of time between 2017 to 2019 with an agreed 2% interest rate over the sum borrowed. After receipt of the money, the respondent neither paid any amount towards principal nor paid any amount towards interest. After continuous and persistent follow up, the respondent issued a Cheque No.000301 for Rs.25,000/- dated 12.08.2021 and Cheque No.000302 for Rs.25,000/- dated 25.08.2021 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, towards part payment of his dues and it was also realized by the petitioner as a part payment towards respondent's liability. After the payment of Rs.50,000/- in 2021 towards interest, the respondent continues to owe and be liable to pay Rs.12,75,000/- to the petitioner along with interest at 2% p.m. The respondent thereafter neither paid any interest nor the principal amount of Rs.12,75,000/- till date. The petitioner issued a legal notice dated 16.04.2022 and the same was received by the respondent on 18.04.2022. The respondent issued a reply notice dated 24.05.2022 to the petitioner, amongst others, admitting liability. Hence, it necessitated the filing of the suit in O.S.No.4795 of 2022.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, during the pendency of thfe suit, the respondent voluntarily made attempts to contact the petitioner over phone and admitted the receipt of money from the petitioner which is subject matter of the suit and the teleconversation was recorded in the “Samsung 31 Model” of the petitioner and saved in the Compact Disc (CD) which are relevant document for the suit and to be received as additional evidence.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the telephonic conversations between the parties are absolutely false. Reiterating the counter averments in I.A., the learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the suit has been filed for recovery of money and for subsequent interest. The petitioner obtained the signature of the respondent in blank promissory note and misused the same to file the suit. Against which, the respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner in STC.No.6732 of 2022 before the IV Fast Track Court at Saidapet, Chennai. After filing the suit, the petitioner never contacted the respondent over phone as alleged and the teleconversation cannot be received as documents since the same was done without the knowledge and consent of the respondent, and for the above act, the respondent is entitled to file a criminal case against the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Electronic Records i.e. the Compact Disk (CD) and tele conversation transcription have been recorded behind the back of the respondent and the petitioner has not complied the co
AI
Admissibility of electronic evidence – Non-Production of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 certificate is a curable defect and it can be produced at any time before completion of trial.
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) ....
The admissibility of electronic evidence requires strict adherence to statutory requirements under the Indian Evidence Act, including proper certification and pleadings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
