A certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act must be issued by the person who had control over the device at the time the original electronic record was created, rather than the person who later received the transferred data.

Order

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’), by which the application submitted by the respondent No.2 under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001) has been allowed and the respondent has been permitted to produce electronic evidence contained under the Pen Drive and Compact Disc (CD) bearing exhibit Nos.8 to 44.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been issued by the person in whose device the recording was transferred. Counsel submits that the original recording was done in the device of one Rajat Sancheti whose certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been produced on the record, hence, under these circumstances, the application submitted by the respondent seeking liberty to produce electronic evidence is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. Counsel submits that as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer reported in AIR 2015 SC 180, it is necessary that the person who is occupying the device at the relevant time, the certificate must be issued by the said person only. Hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that it is true that video was recorded in the device of one Rajat Sancheti, who transferred the same to the device of the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the recorded video in the form of Pen Drive and CD was produced on the record of the Tribunal along with certificate issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Counsel submits that no such objection was ever taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The only objection taken by the petitioner was that the electronic evidence was produced at a later stage. Counsel submits that considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the respondent No.2 was allowed to lead the electronic evidence along with the certificate issued by him under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act by imposing cost of Rs.1500/- upon the respondent No.2, hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is justified which requires no interference of this Court and the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 has been submitted by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner before the Tribunal and during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the said application so submitted by the respondent, seeking liberty to produce the electronic evidence in the form of Pen Drive and CD on the record along with a certificate of one Rajender Kumar Johri under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was allowed.

6. This fact is not in dispute that the video in question was recorded in the device of one Rajat Sancheti and subsequently, the said video was transferred from his device to the device of the respondent No.2-applicant-Rajendra Kumar Johri and he produced the relevant Pen Drive and CD on the record and the same were marked as Exhibit 8 to 44. It appears that at a