Secondary Electronic Evidence Requires Certificate from Original Device Owner: Rajasthan HC - 2025-09-09

Digital Evidence and the Duty of Origin: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Section 65-B

In a significant ruling regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence, the Rajasthan High Court has underscored that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be treated as a mere formality. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhandle of the Jaipur Bench ruled that when digital evidence is transferred between devices, the person in control of the original recording device must issue the mandatory certificate.

The Backdrop: A Dispute Over Electronic Records

The case, Shwetabh Singhal vs. J.k. And Sons , arose from proceedings before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. The respondents sought to place video evidence in the form of a Pen Drive and CD on the record. While the material was original to a third party, Rajat Sancheti, the certificate under Section 65-B was provided by the respondent. The petitioner challenged the impugned order, arguing that the transfer of the recording rendered the respondent's certificate invalid under the law.

The Legal Tug-of-War

The petitioner relied on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer , contending that Section 65-B requires the certificate to be signed by the person who had control over the device at the time of recording. Without the certificate from the owner of the device that initially captured the data, the electronic record could not be admitted.

Conversely, the respondent argued that no objection was raised at the initial stage and that they had satisfied the requirements by providing their own certificate. They contended that in the absence of a challenge to the veracity of the evidence, the Tribunal's decision to accept the material—upon payment of a cost—was legally sound.

The Court’s Reasoning: Navigating Jurisprudence

The High Court turned to the settled principles of Anvar P.V. and the subsequent reiteration in * Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal *. The court maintained that the mandate of Section 65-B is not merely technical but is essential to satisfy the court regarding the authenticity of digital records.

Justice Dhandle noted that since the video was not recorded on the respondent's device, their certificate did not fulfill the statutory requirement. The court held that the trial judge must ensure the certificate comes from the person who actually operated the device where the original recording took place, or take steps to summon such persons if the certificate is not initially forthcoming.

Key Observations

• "Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided... The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device."
• "The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held... that such certificate has to be personally signed by the person, who was occupying the relevant device."
• "The Judge conducting the trial must summon the person referred in Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and requires such person to submit the certificate in [whose] electronic device the evidence has been recorded."
• "In the considered opinion of this Court, the certificate issued by the respondent No.2... is not valid, as the video was not recorded originally in his device."

A Path Forward for Trial Courts

The High Court’s decision serves as a reminder to practitioners that the chain of custody for digital evidence is paramount. By allowing the respondent the liberty to now submit the correct certificate from Rajat Sancheti, the Court aimed to balance procedural integrity with the search for truth. This ruling clarifies that courts must exercise their discretion to ensure that the primary source of digital information is verified, preventing the admission of potentially unreliable or secondary-source certifications.