Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Validity and Stage of Production of Section 65-B Certificate - The certificates under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act can be produced at any stage during the trial, provided the trial is not over. Courts have emphasized that the section does not specify a particular stage for furnishing such certificates, and they can be produced even after the commencement of trial if the proceedings are ongoing ["Ved Prakash Ahuja VS Roma Prakash Ahuja - Bombay"], ["Kailashpati Polyplast Pvt Ltd vs Raghav Industries - Delhi"], ["Meena Kumari Sinha VS Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. New Delhi - Jharkhand"].
Grounds to Challenge a Section 65-B Certificate - Challenges to certificates under Section 65-B are generally on procedural or authenticity grounds. For instance, certificates embossed with the State Emblem or issued long after the relevant event may be contested for lack of authenticity or proper issuance ["Saleha Khatun W/o- Hanif Ali vs Union Of India - Gauhati"], ["Mustt Mumtaz Begum Alias Mamta Begum W/O Kasem Ali vs Union Of India Rep By The Secretary To The Govt Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs - Gauhati"]. However, once properly issued, certificates are considered valid unless proven otherwise.
Timeliness of Challenges - Challenges based on delay or timing are often rejected if the certificate was valid at the relevant time. For example, a caste certificate issued on 18-08-2021 and challenged on 04-12-2021 was deemed invalid due to delay, but this is specific to the context of caste certificates and not necessarily applicable to all certificates under Section 65-B ["Sandil Kumar S., S/O Subramanya S. vs State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department Of Urban Development - Karnataka"].
Legal Consequences and Evidence Admissibility - Certificates obtained under Section 65-B are recognized as valid evidence if they meet procedural requirements, such as identification and description of the electronic record by a responsible authority ["Ved Prakash Ahuja VS Roma Prakash Ahuja - Bombay"], ["Meena Kumari Sinha VS Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. New Delhi - Jharkhand"]. The courts have upheld their admissibility, provided the certification is proper and the certificate has not been tampered with or issued improperly.
Challenges Based on Jurisdiction or Authority - A challenge on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction or that the certificate was issued without proper authority is valid. For example, a certificate issued by an unauthorized person or outside the scope of authority can be contested and deemed invalid ["THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KOZHIPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVES (GENERAL) - Kerala"], ["New Howrah Transport Company Another v. State of W. B. and Others - Calcutta"].
Specific Grounds for Invalidity - Certificates that contain anomalies, such as embossing with the State Emblem or issued without proper verification, can be challenged for lack of authenticity or procedural lapses. The courts have rejected such certificates when their authenticity is questionable ["Saleha Khatun W/o- Hanif Ali vs Union Of India - Gauhati"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Main grounds to challenge a Section 65-B certificate include procedural lapses in issuance, lack of proper certification, anomalies in the document, or jurisdictional issues with the issuing authority. Challenges based solely on delay or timing are generally not sustainable if the certificate was valid at the relevant time. The courts emphasize adherence to procedural requirements for the certificate's admissibility and validity. Therefore, to successfully challenge a Section 65-B certificate, the challenger must demonstrate procedural irregularities, authenticity issues, or lack of jurisdiction in the issuance process ["Ved Prakash Ahuja VS Roma Prakash Ahuja - Bombay"], ["Saleha Khatun W/o- Hanif Ali vs Union Of India - Gauhati"], ["THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KOZHIPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVES (GENERAL) - Kerala"].
In today's digital age, electronic evidence plays a pivotal role in legal proceedings, from criminal trials to civil disputes. However, not all electronic records are automatically admissible. A critical requirement under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is the Section 65B certificate, which authenticates secondary copies of electronic records. But what are the valid grounds to challenge a 65B certificate? This question arises frequently when parties dispute the reliability or procedural validity of such certificates.
Understanding when and how to challenge a Section 65B certificate can make or break a case. This post explores the legal framework, key grounds for challenge, judicial insights, and practical tips, drawing from landmark rulings and statutory provisions. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act governs the admissibility of electronic records. It mandates a certificate under subsection (4) for secondary evidence (like printouts or copies) to be admissible. The certificate must be signed by a person in a responsible official position and confirm:
The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal clarified that this certificate is a mandatory precondition for admissibility, unless the original electronic record is produced as primary evidence DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 5. Failure to comply renders the evidence inadmissible.
Merely alleging defects is insufficient; challenges must be based on specific non-compliances, procedural lapses, or failures under Sections 65B(2) and (4). Courts typically uphold certificates unless proven deficient. Here are the primary grounds:
The certificate must precisely identify the electronic record, describe its production process, detail the device used, and address Section 65B(2) conditions. If it lacks these, it can be challenged.
In one case, the absence of these led to evidence rejection, emphasizing strict compliance DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 5.
Timing and production stage matter. The certificate should accompany the electronic record when tendered.
These include proving the device's regular use and proper operation. Courts scrutinize whether conditions were met at certification timeDHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 5.
Objections must be raised promptly—ideally when evidence is tendered. Belated challenges are often dismissed unless substantive irregularities exist. Objections to the certificate must be raised at the appropriate stage; raising them belatedly or after the evidence is admitted may not be permissible Anupama Pandey @ Anupma Kumari VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 56.
Landmark cases provide clarity:
From additional precedents:
These rulings underscore that while defects can sometimes be cured (e.g., via witness recall), substantive flaws lead to exclusion State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351.
Not all issues doom evidence:
Vague objections without specifics fail; challengers must demonstrate prejudice.
To effectively challenge or defend a 65B certificate:
If defective, evidence may be excluded unless rectified.
Challenging a Section 65B certificate requires precision—focus on statutory non-compliance, procedural flaws, and timely action. Supreme Court precedents like Arjun PanditraoDHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 5 reinforce its mandatory role, while cases affirm curable defects don't always bar evidence State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351Manoj Kumar Tiwari VS Manish Sisodia.
Key Takeaways:- Certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence.- Valid challenges: Non-compliance, irregularities, untimely objections.- Defects may be curable if procedural and trial ongoing.- Always specify grounds with proof.
Stay informed on evolving digital evidence laws. For tailored advice, consult a legal expert. This overview equips you to navigate Section 65B challenges confidently.
#Section65B #ElectronicEvidence #EvidenceAct
Though, Section 65-B does not speak about the stage at which such a certificate must be produced to the Court. ... issue in paragraph 52, when it says that Section 65-B does not speak of the stage at which such certificate must be furnished to the Court. ... under Section 65-B will not be exhibited. ... under Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, but despite efforts if the person seeking such a certificate is unable to do so, he can apply to the Court for its p....
65. ... In the case at hand, the caste certificate had been issued on 18-08-2021 and the challenge to the said caste certificate was on 04-12-2021. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner on the score of delay in raising a challenge, rejects the said challenge by issuance of endorsement on 21-12-2021. ... Then a valid writ petition for quo warranto could certainly lie because then it is not the election of such person which would be in challenge but h....
on 6.10.2021, the aforesaid certificate was valid and therefore, upon that certificate the petitioner had purchased the land in question. ... Even the date on which the petitioner applied for N.A. permission under Section 65B, the aforesaid certificate was valid. The date on which the petitioner's application seeking permission under Section 65B was rejected i.e. on 29.6.2023 and 21.7.2023, the aforesaid certificate was valid. ... Further, in the instant case, even th....
Krishna (PW-189) and to produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act in evidence. The application was rejected by the Trial Court holding the same to be delayed. The order of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge before this Court. ... Krishna (PW-189) and produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act in evidence. ... Coming to the issue as to the stage of production of the certificate under Section 6....
The challenge on the first two grounds therefore is totally devoid of substance. ... The challenge on the first two grounds therefore is totally devoid of substance. ... The petitioners challenge the impugned order in the present writ petition as being passed without jurisdiction and that the deemed ownership certificate issued 65 years back has been quashed by the Tahsildar. 7. ... It is for to the writ petitioners to challenge the same in the appel....
(2020) 7 SCC wherein the Apex Court noted that the Certificate under Section 65 of IEA, can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over. ... Here the necessity of filing the Certificate under Section 65(b) of IEA has arisen because of the contradictory stand taken by the Respondent in his Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and ... Aggrieved by the said Order, it has been challenged on the grounds that the learned Trial Court has committed grave error of law, which has resulted in miscarriage of....
The learned Trial Court on consideration of the rival submissions/grounds has rejected the petition dated 20.12.2022 by passing the impugned order. 8. ... “65-B. ... This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties needs to refer herein the provisions of Section 65 and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which read as under:- “65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. ... One of the provisions of Section 65-B, pa....
This certificate cannot be accepted as a valid piece of evidence for more than one reason. Firstly, the State Emblem of India is embossed in the certificate. ... The other grounds of challenge is that the documents have not been properly appreciated and without there being any rebuttal evidence, the depositions made on behalf of the petitioner should have been deemed to be accepted. ... Union of India reported in 2022 (4) GLT 102 on the aspect of non-disclosure of grounds in the notice....
The learned Trial Court on consideration of the rival submissions/grounds has rejected the petition dated 20.12.2022 by passing the impugned order. 8. ... This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties needs to refer herein the provisions of Section 65 and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which read as under: “65. ... Section 65-B of the Act is for the purpose of treating the electronic goods as evidence. 11. One of the provisions of Section 65-....
of the Act is not under challenge in this writ petition. ... has issued Ext.P1 order invoking his powers under Section 65 of the Act. ... TRUE COPY OF VALUATION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.KEISCO/VAL/519/2015/95 DATED 04.07.2015. EXHIBIT P4. ... The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is absolutely without any valid reason that the 1st respondent Joint Registrar ... In such circumstances, this Court finds absolutely no grounds to interfere with Ext.P1 orde....
As such, it is clearly established on record that the original mobile phone of the complainant has not been seized from respondent No.2 herein whom the alleged defamatory WhatsApp messages were sent for the first time and stored in it and even the mobile phone of respondent No.2 has not been produced and therefore certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act was required to be filed which has not been filed along with the charge-sheet. Therefore, there is clear violation of the provisions contained in Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act and thus the chances of conviction o....
Beside the fact that there is nothing wrong with 65 B certificate and if any it is held in Hon’ble Supreme Court of in Union of India vs. Non-production of the certificate U/s 65-B of the Evidence Act on as earlier occasion was curable defect which stood cured. At the stage 204 Cr.PC prima facie view must be taken.
It was also contended that though they requested to furnish certified copies of the certificates issued, but they were not furnished. It was therefore contended that having regard to the contentions urged by them on validity of alleged 13-B certificate, the Tahsildar could not have proceeded to grant mutation. Therefore, they specifically stated in paragraph-5 of their appeal that they would reserve the right to challenge 13-B certificate, dated 08.09.1997 as and when certified copies were furnished to them.
The petitioner has also no case that the amendment is without legislative competence. Any challenge to a Statute should be on valid grounds. In the writ petition, there is no allegation of violation of any constitutional provisions. The 7th respondent would also contend that in the writ petition the challenge is against the provisions of a Statute, as amended by Ordinance of 2018.
Therefore, at this stage no such opinion could be found as the same is pre-mature. Whether the said certificate was executed in compliance of the certificate under Section 65-B is the test which would be seen in the light of facts and circumstances under which the said certificate was executed. The prosecution has filed certificate dated 07.06.2003 issued by Navdeep Singh Virk alongwith the chargesheet, the said certificate is disputed by the petitioner on the ground that it does not fulfils the requirement of Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act. The Certificate is reproduced ....
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
