For electronic records to be admissible as evidence, compliance with S.65B of the Evidence Act is mandatory.

1. The instant criminal petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage, as agreed to by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor.

2. The instant application is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 5) West Tripura, Agartala in S.T.(T - 1) 100 of 2014 wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the prayer to admit the Compact Disk (in short hereinafter referred to as CD) in the evidence on the ground that the I.O did not collect any certificate in respect of the CD, in question, as required under S.65 B(4) of the Evidence Act , as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer and Others, reported in AIR 2015 SC 180.

3. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned PP while urging for quashing the impugned order submits that the CD which was produced before the I.O was an unknown person. Thus, no certificate could be collected by the I.O. He further submits that the CD which was tendered is necessary for deciding the sessions trial being No. ST(T - 1) 100 of 2014.

4. This Court has gone through the impugned order as well as the provisions of S.65B(4) of the Evidence Act , which reads as follows :
'In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say, -
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.'

5. In Anvar P. V. (AIR 2015 SC 180) supra, the Apex Court noted inter alia that
'The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under S.63 read with S.65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of S.59 and S.65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. S.63 and S.65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by S.65A and S.65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra) does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under S.65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, Chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of S.65 B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible'.

6. The State admittedly has not produced any certificate in terms of S.65 B of the Evidence Act in respect of the CD which it wants to take in evidence. Therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence and according to this Court the learned trial Court d