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…!
Section 65B Certificate Requirement - The certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is a mandatory prerequisite for the admissibility of electronic records, such as emails, digital evidence, or recordings. It must be issued by a responsible person in relation to the device from which the electronic record originates. The certificate should accompany the electronic record when produced in court, although it can be furnished at any stage of the trial if not initially provided ["Vikram Jesudasen & Advocate VS Suresh Kumar - Madras"], ["Balbir Singh vs Shiromani Panth Akali Budha Dal Panjwan Takhat - Punjab and Haryana"], ["K. Loganathan VS A. Elango - Current Civil Cases"].
Admissibility of Emails Without Section 65B Certificate - Courts have held that without the requisite Section 65B(4) certificate, electronic evidence like emails cannot be considered valid unless the original document is produced. Oral evidence cannot substitute for the certificate, which is a mandatory legal requirement ["MITA SUBHASBHAI DIXIT vs BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Consumer State"], ["MITA SUBHASBHAI DIXIT vs BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Consumer State"].
Exceptions and Clarifications - If the original electronic document (such as the email or digital record) is produced, the certificate under Section 65B(4) may be deemed unnecessary. Moreover, if a defective or absent certificate is identified, courts can summon the responsible officer to produce a proper certificate, and failure to do so can be rectified before the trial concludes ["MITA SUBHASBHAI DIXIT vs BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD - Consumer State"], ["K. Loganathan VS A. Elango - Current Civil Cases"], ["State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - Kerala"].
Procedure and Timing - The law does not specify a strict timing for submitting the certificate; it can be produced at any stage of the trial. Overturned decisions have clarified that non-production of the certificate at the initial stage does not automatically render evidence inadmissible, provided the certificate is produced later and the electronic record is otherwise authentic ["State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - Kerala"], ["K. Loganathan VS A. Elango - Madras"].
Legal Precedents - The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar's case emphasized that the certificate under Section 65B is a condition precedent for admissibility, but it can be produced at any point before the trial's conclusion. The court also clarified that the certificate must be signed by a responsible officer and must deal with specific conditions outlined in Section 65B(2) ["Vikram Jesudasen & Advocate VS Suresh Kumar - Madras"], ["State Represented By Inspector Of Police VS Rev. FR. Varghese Thekkekara (AL), S/o. T. M. Baby Thekkekara - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:In summary, for emails or any electronic records to be admissible in court, a proper certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act is generally required. This certificate certifies the authenticity of the electronic record and must be issued by a responsible person related to the device or system producing the record. While the certificate is mandatory, courts have recognized that it can be produced at any stage of the trial, and non-compliance at the initial stage can be rectified later. The key is that the electronic record must be authenticated properly to be accepted as evidence.
In today's digital age, electronic records like emails, WhatsApp chats, and other digital communications often play a pivotal role in legal disputes. However, their admissibility in Indian courts hinges on a critical requirement: the Section 65B(4) certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A common question arises—Who shall issue 65B certificate? This blog post breaks down the legal framework, key judicial interpretations, and practical guidance to help you navigate this essential procedural step.
Failure to comply can render vital evidence inadmissible, potentially derailing your case. We'll explore the mandatory nature of this certificate, who qualifies to issue it, timing considerations, and insights from landmark rulings. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 65B of the Evidence Act addresses the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. Subsection (4) mandates a certificate that authenticates the electronic record. Courts have consistently ruled this as a mandatory condition precedent for admissibility, particularly for secondary evidence like printouts or screenshots of emails and WhatsApp messages. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642
The certificate must:- Identify the electronic record precisely.- Describe the device or process used to produce it.- Provide particulars of the device involved.- Be signed by a person in a responsible official position related to the device's operation or the activities producing the record. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642
In the landmark case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) SCC 1, the Supreme Court clarified these requirements, emphasizing that without this certificate, electronic evidence cannot be relied upon. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76
The key query—who shall issue the 65B certificate?—is answered clearly: any person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the device or management of the activities that produced the electronic record. Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642
This typically includes:- The owner or authorized operator of the device (e.g., the phone owner for WhatsApp messages or email account holder).- A system administrator or IT officer managing the network/server where data was first stored.- An authorized person from the party in possession of the device. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76
For instance, if you're relying on your own WhatsApp chats, you (as the device owner) or someone you authorize can issue it. If it's from a company server, the IT head or relevant official steps in. The certifier must base it on their best knowledge and belief. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642
Other judicial insights reinforce this:- In cases involving networks or systems that can't be physically produced in court, the certificate from the controlling official, alongside Section 65B(1) compliance, is essential. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642- Courts may summon the responsible person to provide the certificate if it's defective or absent, as per Arjun Panditrao. M. Sudheer VS M. Kamaraj - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 3663 The ruling states: in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the concerned person, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65B(4). M. Sudheer VS M. Kamaraj - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 3663
A common misconception is that the certificate must accompany the evidence simultaneously. Courts have clarified it can be issued after the electronic record is produced, as long as it's submitted before the trial concludes. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642
However, best practice is to produce it along with or before tendering the evidence to avoid objections. Delays aren't fatal if no prejudice is caused, but proactive compliance strengthens your position. State of Kerala VS Sunil N. S. @ Pulsar Suni S/o Surendran - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 9
While generally mandatory for secondary evidence, exceptions apply:- Primary evidence: If the original device or record is produced directly, no certificate may be required, provided the source is proved by the controlling person. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351- Curable defects: Non-production is curable via summoning under CrPC Section 311, as long as the trial isn't over and no unfair advantage is sought. State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351State of Kerala VS Sunil N. S. @ Pulsar Suni S/o Surendran - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 9
Unsigned or unsworn certificates are inadmissible, underscoring the need for proper execution. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76
For emails:- The certifier should control the device/system that first stored the data (e.g., email server admin). Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642
For WhatsApp:- The phone owner or extractor (who downloaded/captured chats) typically issues it. In one case, a witness produced a Section 65B certificate for audited records, confirming no manipulation. Kapoor Imaging Private Limited VS Kodak (India) Private Limited
Pro tip: The person downloading or extracting should obtain the certificate immediately. In a rape conspiracy case, courts allowed originals and certificates via Section 91 CrPC, noting: Section 65B does not speak of the stage at which such certificate must be furnished. State of Kerala VS Sunil N. S. @ Pulsar Suni S/o Surendran - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 9
Objections to the wrong witness proving the certificate (e.g., not the issuer) may arise, so ensure the right person testifies. State of Maharashtra VS Ramesh Vishwanath Darandale - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1689
Recent cases expand on flexibility:- In bomb blasts probes, certificates were permitted late under Section 311 CrPC: Certificate under Section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by prosecution is not an evidence which has been created now. State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351- For pen drives or non-record electronics, absence isn't always fatal if not part of the record, but certification is preferred. M. Sudheer VS M. Kamaraj - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 3663- Emails as primary evidence may bypass strict certification if proved otherwise. Sejal Basavraj Talloli VS State of Gujarat - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 328
These rulings emphasize truth-seeking over technicalities, provided no prejudice to the accused. State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351
To ensure admissibility:1. Identify the responsible official early—device owner, IT admin, or authorized extractor.2. Draft the certificate with all statutory details: record ID, production manner, device specs.3. Produce it promptly, but know it can be filed later if needed.4. For networks, pair with Section 65B(1) affidavit.5. In disputes, apply under CrPC 311 if required—courts favor justice. State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351
The person in control of the device that initially stored or generated the data—such as the owner or authorized operator—shall issue the Section 65B(4) certificate, making it admissible in court. Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642 This procedural safeguard upholds evidence integrity amid rising digital disputes.
Key Takeaways:- Mandatory for secondary electronic evidence. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76- Issued by responsible officials; timing flexible. Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642- Exceptions for primaries; curable via court summons.- Always verify with precedents like Arjun Panditrao.
Stay compliant to leverage digital proof effectively. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert.
References: Ravinder Singh @ Kaku VS State of Punjab - 2022 5 Supreme 76, Smriti Madan Kansagra VS Perry Kansagra - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 642, State of Karnataka VS T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi - 2023 7 Supreme 351, M. Sudheer VS M. Kamaraj - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 3663, State of Kerala VS Sunil N. S. @ Pulsar Suni S/o Surendran - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 9, State of Maharashtra VS Ramesh Vishwanath Darandale - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1689, Sejal Basavraj Talloli VS State of Gujarat - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 328, Kapoor Imaging Private Limited VS Kodak (India) Private Limited, M/S KM EUROPA METAL AG Vs. M/S NEW ERA INDUSTRIES - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 24797
#Section65B, #ElectronicEvidence, #EvidenceAct
The plaintiffs sought for permission to reopen the case to examine the 6th defendant as there was also a need to produce the certificate under Section 65B of the Act as the E-mails were submitted without the certificate provided under Section 65B of the Act. ... According to the plaintiffs, the copies of the Emails were handed over to the plaintiff by the 6th defendant. The Emails communications were emanated from the devices in possession of the defendants 6th& 7th. ... The said #HL_S....
(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4).” ... her health issue. ... However, opponent Insurance Company has submitted only emails and therefore without certificate as required by section 65B of Indian evidence act, the emails produced in this matter cannot be considered as a evidence and hence in the opinion of this commission opponent Insurance company failed to prove ... The clarification referred to above is that the required ce....
(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4).” ... her health issue. ... However, opponent Insurance Company has submitted only emails and therefore without certificate as required by section 65B of Indian evidence act, the emails produced in this matter cannot be considered as a evidence and hence in the opinion of this commission opponent Insurance company failed to prove ... The clarification referred to above is that the required ce....
CW 47 brought a certification under section 65B and was placed before the court. As the defence objected to the marking of the same, the same was not considered. CW49 stated that he cannot issue the certificate based on his memory alone. ... section (4) of section 65B and require such person to give such certificate. ... The said provision deals with the contents and manner in which such certification is to be made and also as to the person who is competent to issue such a ce....
Section 65B of the Evidence Act deals with admissibility of electronic records. Section 65B(4) deals with furnishing of a certificate when a statement in evidence by virtue of the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is to be given:- “65B. ... be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate and for the purposes 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. ... Pendin....
The Trial Court shall proceed with the matter further. ... Coming to the issue as to the stage of production of the certificate under Section 65-B of the Act is concerned, this Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar’s case (supra) held that the certificate under 65-B of the Act can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over. ... 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 of the Act. ... It....
Of course, it is open to the court/presiding officer at that time to ascertain and verify whether the responsible officer could issue the said certificate and meet the requirements of Section 65B.” 59. ... (4) of Section 65B. ... However, in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the concerned person, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65B#H....
together with the requisite certificate Under Section 65B(4). ... But the Non-Production of 65B certificate is a curable defect and it can be produced at any time before completion of trial. Hence, the order of the Trial Court in dismissing the application under Order VII rule 14(3) for non production of 65B certificate is not justifiable. ... (b) The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate Under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary....
together with the requisite certificate Under Section 65B(4). ... (b) The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate Under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. ... However, in cases where either a defective certificate is given, or in cases where such certificate has been demanded and is not given by the concerned person, the Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65B....
While refuting the submissions, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has been summoned for a limited purpose of proving certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the petitioner shall have sufficient opportunity to cross examine the respondent with respect ... Learned counsel further submitted that by virtue of the previous application, the respondent had brought on record certain emails, therefore, the respondent should have been careful to place on record the cert....
Ex.P29 11. Another witness by name Mr.A.Maheswara Reddy was also examined on the side of the plaintiff as PW2. He is a Chartered Accountant and he claims to have audited the accounts of the plaintiff company since 1994. He has also filed a proof affidavit and through his deposition, he confirms that there was no manipulation of the records/accounts in the plaintiff company to the best of his knowledge. Through PW2, the Section 65 B certificate pertaining to Exs.P9 to P12, Ex.P25, Ex.P26 & Ex. Ex.P28 65B certificate pertaining to Exs.P9 to P12, P25, P26 & P27 Ex.P27 ....
The Court below also found that the attempt of the prosecution is to fill up lacuna by directing the concerned authorities to produce the documents in a particular manner and if such a direction is issued, it would cause prejudice to the accused. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri. B. Raman Pillai, strenuously submitted that the Court exercising power u/s 91 can only ask for production of the document and law does not permit Court issuing further direction to produce a document incorporating or drafting a particular content in the document. What is sought for is to direct production o....
(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 ....
However, prosecution has not examined Mr. Pawar but Mr. Chetan Patil. He has produced certificate under Section 65B at Exhibit 250. It appears the 65B certificate was issued by Mr. Ganesh Pawar. Appellants have raised objection on this count and would contend that the evidence of Mr. Patil cannot be admitted for proving subject certificate at Exhibit 250.
It is difficult to conceive and accept that the emails would be inadmissible, if the official i.e. the person who downloaded them and had taken printouts had failed to, on that occasion or simultaneously record a certificate under Section 65B. 53. These emails may become relevant and important electronic evidence, subsequently. Section 65B is a part of Chapter V of the Evidence Act, which relates to documentary evidence. Documentary evidence can be primary as defined in Section 62, which means the document itself, or secondary which refers to certified copies or copies made....
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
