The court reaffirmed the necessity of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the admissibility of electronic records, ensuring the integrity and authenticity of evidence presented in judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.07.2018 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Talwandi Sabo, vide which the application filed by petitioner-defendant for putting DVDs in the cross-examination of PW1 (Baba Dyal Singh) and other witnesses was rejected.

2. A suit (Annexure P-1) for declaration to the effect that respondent-plaintiff No.1 (Shiromani Panth Akali Budha Dal Panjwan Takhat) was the owner in possession of land situated in Village Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda (fully described in the plaint) and that entries to the contrary in the revenue record by way of mutations and Will dated 11.06.2007 of Jathedar late Baba Santa Singh in favour of the petitioner-defendant were illegal, manipulated and forged documents, was filed. Written statement (Annexure P-2) was filed denying the averments made in the plaint.

3. The details of the averments made in the plaint, as also in the written statement are not of much relevance for the purpose of decision of the instant revision petition and are, therefore, not required to be referred to.

4. During the pendency of the suit, an application (Annexure P-4) was moved by the petitioner-defendant to put DVD (one disc) as regards recording of the gathering at Talwandi Sabo on 18.04.2007 for appointment of the petitioner-defendant proposed as Sarbrah Head of Budha Dal and successor of Baba Santa Singh and three DVDs as regards the gathering on 01.10.2007 which took place in the Sports Complex Budha Dal Public School, Patiala when petitioner-defendant was appointed as the 14^th Head Jathedar of the Shrimonai Panth Akali Budha Dal Panjawan Takhat and resignation given by Baba Santa Singh to PW1 (Baba Dyal Singh) and other witnesses was moved.

5. It was averred in the application that PW1 (Baba Dyal Singh) had to be cross-examined and in his cross-examination he had admitted that on 15.02.2017, Major Singh Sarbara Nambardar had written the resolution of the proceedings on 18.04.2007 and had admitted his signatures on the original and photostat copy of the said proceedings/resolution. The said document had already been produced on record as Ex.D20. It was averred that on 18.04.2007, a movie had also been prepared and photographs had been taken. This fact had also been admitted by PW1 (Baba Dyal Singh) in his cross- examination and photographs etc. had been marked ‘D30’. It had further been admitted in his cross-examination that on 01.10.2007, there was a large gathering at Patiala, wherein he himself was also present there and the joint bhog of Assa Singh, Bhai Jagdish Singh, Bhajan Singh and Kaka Karamjit Singh was performed. He admitted that on the said occasion as well, photographs were taken and a video was prepared. It was averred that in view the categoric admissions, the DVDs containing the videos prepared on 18.04.2007 and 01.10.2007 were to be put to the said witness and he had to be confronted with the same. It was averred that the said exercise was essential for adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

6. The application was opposed by way of reply (Annexure P-5), wherein preliminary objections as regards the provisions of Section 65B and 45A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the “Evidence Act”) were taken while placing reliance upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Jain vs. State of Haryana , 2016 (2) RCR (Crl.) 870. It was averred that the video recordings could be tampered with at any point of time and that for the admissibilit