Heard Sri.Prasad.K.R.Rao, learned counsel appearing for

Sri.Venkatesh Somareddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in C.C.No.4459/2015, in particular, an order dated

27.12.2021. The order dated 27.12.2021 reads as follows:

“Counsel for complainant filed application

U/sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer

to

permit

him

to

producing

the

Electronics

documents i.e., cash book and balance sheet and

getting marked as exhibits in favour of the

complainant.

On the other had counsel for accused filed

objection and denied all the averments in the

3

application

and

contended

that,

the

present

application does not disclose the requirements

laidown in Sec.65(B) (4) of Indian Evidence Act.

Perused the application, objection and order

sheet. The complainant is further examined and got

marked Ex.P5 to 7. In the meanwhile complainant

has produced some computerized documents along

with the application.

Perused

the documents,

in

this regard

admissibility of electronic records the Hon’ble court

can be consider at the at the time of judgment.

Hence, Complainant is permitted to marking of

documents.

For further chief of PW.1

Sd/-

VI Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysore.”

3.

The

grievance

of

the

petitioner

is

that

the

afore-quoted electronic evidence that is sought to be produced

before the Court is taken on record contrary to Section 65B(4) of

4

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

said Act’ for short). Section 65B(4) of the said Act reads as

follows:

“65B(4.) 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

5

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.”

The afore-quoted provision mandates that when electronic

record is to be produced, it should be signed by a person

occupying a responsible position and a certificate to that effect

be produced before the court.

4.

It is not in dispute that the complainant wanted to

produce such electronic evidence before the Court. The Court

has accepted the document holding that the electronic evidence

in terms of Section 65B(4) of the said Act will be considered at a

later stage. The finding rendered is erroneous and contrary to

the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of ARJUN

PANDITRAO

KHOTKAR

V.

KAILASH

KUSHANRAO

GORANTYAL¹,

wherein

the

Apex

Court

has

delineated

admissibility of electronic evidence without identification and

accuracy of it, which would necessarily be on a certificate issued

1 (2020) 7 SCC 1

6

by the competent person in whose custody the said electronic

evidence was.

5.

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court

and the statute, the trial Court is restrained from marking those

electronic records without complying with Section 65B(4) of the

said Act, which would necessitate a certificate of production of

those records in tune with Section 65B(4) of the said Act.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the following:

ORDER

i.

Crimin