Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Shafhi Mohammad VS State of Himachal Pradesh...

Shafhi Mohammad VS State of Himachal Pradesh - 2018 2 Supreme 545 : The requirement of section 65B is not always mandatory. Electronic evidence should be used, and a party not in possession of the device cannot be required to produce the certificate under section 65B(4).Checking relevance for State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi...

State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351 : Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not required if the electronic record is used as primary evidence. It is also unnecessary when the original document (primary evidence) itself is produced. Non-production of the certificate is a curable defect, and the certificate can be produced at any stage of the trial if the trial is not over.Checking relevance for ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL...

ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405 : Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not require a certificate under Section 65B(4) if the original electronic record itself is produced. In cases where the original electronic record (such as a cassette, laptop, tablet, or mobile phone) is presented in court, and the owner or operator of the device testifies to its authenticity and ownership, the certificate is unnecessary. This principle was affirmed in Vikram Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2017) 8 SCC 518, where the Court held that where primary evidence in electronic form has been produced, no certificate under Section 65B is required. The original cassette containing a recorded conversation, handed over by the complainant to the police, was admitted as primary evidence without a Section 65B certificate because it was the original recording, not a copy.Checking relevance for Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence VS Suresh Kumar And Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. ...

Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence VS Suresh Kumar And Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1278 : The court held that strict compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (which is pari materia to Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act) may be relaxed where there is substantial compliance, particularly when the authenticity of electronic records is not disputed. The court emphasized that due compliance can be established through demonstrable acknowledgment of document authenticity by the respondents, and that the principle of ''''lex non cogit ad impossibilia'''' (the law does not compel the impossible) supports such relaxation. Therefore, even in the absence of a formal certificate under Section 65B(4), evidence may be admissible if authenticity is acknowledged and there is no dispute on that ground.Checking relevance for Commissioner of GST And Central Excise VS Citi Bank N. A. ...

Checking relevance for VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB...

VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2017 5 Supreme 451 : Original audio cassettes are primary evidence under Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and therefore do not require a certificate under Section 65B. This principle was affirmed in the judgment of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, where the Court held that if an electronic record is used as primary evidence, it is admissible without compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 65B. In the instant case, the original cassette containing the ransom call was handed over by the complainant to the police and constituted primary evidence, making the Section 65B certificate inapplicable.

• Section 65B Certificate Not Required When Primary Evidence Exists - The courts have held that a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not mandatory if electronic records are produced as primary evidence, especially when the electronic device and related reports are already on record. For example, in Anwar’s case, the court allowed electronic evidence without insisting on a Section 65B certificate, emphasizing that producing the certificate at a later stage does not cause irreversible prejudice to the accused ["State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351"].

• Mandatory Nature of Section 65B Certificate for Secondary Evidence - Several judgments emphasize that if original electronic documents are not produced, a certificate under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory condition for admissibility of secondary evidence. Failure to produce such a certificate results in rejection of evidence or application, as seen in cases where applications under Section 45C of the Evidence Act were dismissed due to non-compliance with Section 65B requirements ["M.ASHOK KUMAR vs V.D NAIDU - Andhra Pradesh"], ["SARITA NATH D/O MAHENDRA AMARNATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"].

• Conditions for Electronic Evidence and Certification - Sections 65A and 65B are read together to clarify proof and admissibility conditions for electronic records. The certificate must satisfy specific conditions, including being issued by a responsible official, to establish the authenticity of electronic evidence ["DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"], ["DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].

• Admissibility Without Certificate in Certain Cases - The Supreme Court clarified that if the original electronic record is produced, the certificate under Section 65B(4) may not be necessary. The focus is on the production of primary evidence, which can render the certificate optional unless required by law or specific circumstances ["Sailendra Kumar Goswami S/o Late Tarun Chandra Goswami VS State of Assam - Gauhati"], ["DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"], ["Tagros Chemicals India Private Limited VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat"].

• Relevance of Electronic Evidence and Procedural Requirements - Courts have reiterated that electronic evidence must satisfy the conditions of Section 65B for admissibility. If the certificate is not produced, the evidence can be rejected unless the law permits its omission, such as when the original record is produced directly ["SMT. D. R. MAHALAKSHMI v/s SRI. R. RAMACHANDRA - Karnataka"].

• Legal Interpretations and Recent Judgments - The Supreme Court in Arjun Pandit reaffirmed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent for admissibility of electronic records. When the original electronic record is produced, compliance with Section 65B is not strictly necessary, emphasizing the importance of primary evidence over procedural certificates ["DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].

• Additional Considerations - In cases involving land or agricultural status, the courts have held that the status of the predecessor in title as an agriculturist is irrelevant for certain legal permissions, and procedural compliance with evidence law (including Section 65B) is necessary for electronic evidence's admissibility ["mr mark d souza v/s mr harsha dandapani - Karnataka"].

Analysis and Conclusion:The consensus across judgments is that Section 65B certificates are mandatory for secondary electronic evidence unless the original electronic record is produced directly, in which case the certificate may be deemed unnecessary. Courts prioritize primary evidence, and procedural compliance with Section 65B enhances the admissibility and credibility of electronic records. The legal interpretations aim to streamline the evidentiary process while safeguarding against inadmissible or unreliable electronic evidence.