Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 65B Certificate - The certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required to authenticate electronic records as evidence. It must be issued by a responsible official involved in the operation or management of the electronic record. This certificate is a mandatory prerequisite for admitting electronic evidence in court proceedings ["State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - Supreme Court"], ["SRI D L GANESH Vs SRI SAMPATH KUMAR M N - Karnataka"], ["DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"], ["DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].
Purpose and Legal Requirement - The certificate under Section 65B(4) specifically confirms the authenticity of electronic records, including copies or secondary evidence. The Supreme Court has clarified that this certificate is a condition precedent for admissibility, unless the original electronic document is produced ["SRI D L GANESH Vs SRI SAMPATH KUMAR M N - Karnataka"], ["DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"], recent Supreme Court judgment.
Admissibility of Electronic Evidence - Courts have emphasized that without the proper certificate under Section 65B(4), electronic evidence cannot be admitted, regardless of its contents or the report from forensic labs. The certificate must be signed by a responsible person and produced at the time of marking the document ["DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].
Who Can Give the Certificate - The certificate must be issued by a person occupying a responsible official position related to the electronic record, such as an officer or authority involved in handling or managing the electronic data. The court may verify the authority of the certifying person before accepting the certificate ["SRI D L GANESH Vs SRI SAMPATH KUMAR M N - Karnataka"], ["DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].
Voice Samples and Privacy Rights - Orders to give voice samples are not considered to infringe upon the right to privacy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha case. Voice samples are used solely for comparison and are not testimonial evidence ["Raj Kumar VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Sunil Kumar Gulati VS State Of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Sunil Kumar Gulati VS State Of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"].
The certification under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records in court. The certificate must be issued by a responsible official involved with the electronic data. Orders to produce voice samples do not violate constitutional rights, as they serve a forensic purpose and are not testimonial in nature. Therefore, only qualified and authorized persons can issue the Section 65B certificate, and its absence can lead to the rejection of electronic evidence.
References:- State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - Supreme Court- DHANANJAY BALASAHEB KANAKDANDE vs SOW. SARITA DHANANJAY KANAKDANDE AND OTHERS- SRI D L GANESH Vs SRI SAMPATH KUMAR M N - Karnataka- DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat- DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat- Raj Kumar VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana- Sunil Kumar Gulati VS State Of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana- Sunil Kumar Gulati VS State Of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana
In today's digital age, electronic evidence such as emails, CCTV footage, and WhatsApp messages plays a pivotal role in legal proceedings. However, for these records to be admissible in Indian courts, they often require a mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A common question arises: Who can give 65B certificate? This blog post breaks down the legal requirements, judicial interpretations, and practical considerations to help you understand this crucial aspect of evidence law.
Note: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Section 65B addresses the admissibility of electronic records. It stipulates that a copy of an electronic record is admissible in evidence if accompanied by a certificate that authenticates its accuracy and the device's operation. The certificate must confirm that the electronic record was produced by a computer or device operated properly, without tampering, and identify the device used. State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32
The key provision in Section 65B(4) requires this certificate to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or system. But who exactly qualifies? Let's explore.
The certificate can be given by a person who occupies a responsible official position related to the operation or management of the electronic device or system that generated or stored the record. Importantly, this person need not be the owner of the device. What matters is their sufficient control, knowledge, and responsibility over the device and the process of generating or maintaining the electronic record. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries VS P. Mukesh Kumar - 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 868State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32
Examples include:- System administrators or IT managers overseeing the server or computer.- Officers responsible for maintenance of CCTV systems in banks or offices.- Custodians of data, such as nodal officers in government departments or telecom providers. State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki VS State of Gujarat - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 463
The certifier must:- Sign the certificate.- Describe the manner of production of the electronic record.- Identify the device or system used.- Address the conditions under Section 65B(2), ensuring the device was functioning properly. State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki VS State of Gujarat - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 463
Judicial rulings emphasize that ownership is irrelevant. The focus is on control and responsibility. For instance, in cases involving CCTV footage from ATMs or branches, the branch manager or IT head can issue it, even if the bank owns the system. State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki VS State of Gujarat - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 463
The Supreme Court has provided landmark guidance, particularly in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) (MANU/SC/0521/2020). The court clarified: the certificate can be issued by any person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or activities. State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries VS P. Mukesh Kumar - 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 868
Key holdings from this case include:- The certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence but unnecessary if the original document is produced. DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 549- Courts can summon the responsible person if they refuse or fail to provide the certificate: An application can always be made to a Judge for production of such a certificate from the requisite person under Section 65B(4) in cases in which such person refuses to give it. Sunil VS State Of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 1006ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405- It can be produced at any stage of the proceedings, not just initially. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries VS P. Mukesh Kumar - 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 868State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32
In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (overruled in part), the court initially suggested limitations, but Arjun Panditrao overruled this, affirming that parties can seek court directions to obtain the certificate from third parties. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405
Lower courts have echoed this. For example, in a Karnataka High Court case, the trial court was directed to allow recall of a witness to produce the 65B certificate at the marking stage. SHREYAS S Vs RAVIKUMAR S N
While the certificate is generally required, exceptions apply:- Original electronic records: No certificate needed if the primary evidence (e.g., original video cassette) is produced. Compliance with Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 549- Refusal by responsible person: Courts may summon them or admit evidence after assessing efforts made. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries VS P. Mukesh Kumar - 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 868Sunil VS State Of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 1006- Unavailability: The maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law does not compel the impossible) may apply if all reasonable steps are taken. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405
In a revision petition involving ATM CCTV without the certificate, the court acquitted the accused, underscoring the certificate's importance: the footage was inadmissible absent compliance. Sunil VS State Of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 1006
However, in cases like bank disciplinary proceedings, courts have considered electronic evidence contextually, even if certificates are imperfect, provided disability or other proofs suggest authenticity. Balak Ram VS Binder Kumar @ Balwinder Kumar - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 2212
To ensure smooth admissibility:- Identify the right person early: Approach IT heads, custodians, or managers with device control.- Request via court if needed: File applications under Section 91 CrPC or Section 311 CrPC for summons.- Prepare comprehensive certificates: Include device details, operation logs, and tamper-proof statements.- Courts: Exercise discretion to avoid prejudice, balancing prosecution and defense rights. ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405
Understanding who can issue a 65B certificate is vital for leveraging digital evidence effectively. Stay updated on evolving jurisprudence, as technology and case law continue to shape this area.
References:1. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries VS P. Mukesh Kumar - 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 868: Responsible official position for device operation.2. State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 32: Not limited to owners; judicial support.3. Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki VS State of Gujarat - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 463: Signing, description, and court summons.4. DHRUBEN GURALDAS BALANI VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 549, Sunil VS State Of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 1006, ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405: Exceptions and summons provisions.
#Section65B #ElectronicEvidence #IndianEvidenceAct
When the aforesaid witness was further examined in chief on 27.04.2017, the report under Section 65B was produced to which objection was raised by the counsel of the defence and vide order dated 20.06.2017 the Trial Court declined to take the certificate, issued under Section 65B of the Act, on record ... However, the Trial Court vide order dated 07.04.2017 declined to take the same on record in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B#HL_END....
Said writ petition was dismissed and respondent No.1 was directed to give has also directed to respondent No.1 to give her sample of voice The respondent No.1 is directed to give her shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B had submitted certificate under Section 65B regarding copy of p style="position:absolute
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, –– said Act, which would necessitate a certificate of production of those records in tune with Section 65B(4) of the said Act. ... The Court has accepted the document holding that the electron....
Sub-section (4) of Section 65B, thus lays down about the certificate to be produced in a proceeding, when it is desired to give a statement by virtue of the Section 65B. ... –– When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks....
Sub-section (4) of Section 65B, thus lays down about the certificate to be produced in a proceeding, when it is desired to give a statement by virtue of the Section 65B. ... Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence. –– When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and....
of Indian Evidence Act and the learned Magistrate is directed to give an opportunity to DW.1 to adduce further evidence as sought for. ... The certificate under Section 65B is to be produced at the time of marking the documents. ... In view of allowing the application filed under 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the witness DW.1 is to be recalled and he shall be permitted to lead his further evidence by placing the certific....
proof or production of the original as evidence, whereas, Section 65B (4) provides that, in any proceedings where it is desire to give statement in evidence, a certificate as prescribed being required to be issued and signed by a person occupying the responsible official position in relation to operation ... Sections 65A and 65B were introduced in the chapter relating to documentary evidence. ... Recently in the case of Arjun Pandit (supra)....
65B(4) is mandatory. ... (Oral) - This criminal revision is filed against the order dated 19.4.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala whereby the petitioner was directed to give his voice sample. ... The Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha ((2019) 8 SCC 1) held that the direction to give voice sample does not infringe article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It was held that the voice sample is only for purpose of comparison and is ....
Section 65B(4) is mandatory. ... Petitioner was directed to give his voice sample. Hence the present petition. 4. ... Would a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, is the next question. ... Whether compelling to give voice samples infringes Right to Privacy was an issue in Ritesh Sinhas case (supra) and the Supreme....
65B(4) is mandatory. ... Petitioner was directed to give his voice sample. Hence the present petition. 4. ... Would a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, is the next question. ... Whether compelling to give voice samples infringes Right to Privacy was an issue in Ritesh Sinha's case (supra) and the Supreme Court ....
An application can always be made to a Judge for production of such a certificate from the requisite person under Section 65B(4) in cases in which such person refuses to give it.
At the cost of repetition, subsection (4) of Section 65B is reproduced herein below for ready reference: (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 appro....
Thus, it is clear that the major premise of Shafhi Mohammad (supra) that such certificate cannot be secured by persons who are not in possession of an electronic device is wholly incorrect. An application can always be made to a Judge for production of such a certificate from the requisite person Under Section 65B(4) in cases in which such person refuses to give it.”
44. Resultantly, the judgment dated 03.04.2018 of a Division Bench of this Court reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, in following the law incorrectly laid down in Shafhi Mohammed (supra), must also be, and is hereby, overruled. An application can always be made to a Judge for production of such a certificate from the requisite person under Section 65B(4) in cases in which such person refuses to give it. Thus, it is clear that the major premise of Shafhi Mohammad (supra) that such c....
However this certificate has not been proved as per the requirement of law; by examining either of the member of the Medical Board which assessed this disability. However, this definetely suggests that the appellant had suffered disability in the accident on account of head injury. Therefore, although this cerificate cannot be taken at its face value.
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
