The Rajasthan High Court recently delivered an important ruling regarding the issuance of certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is crucial for the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in court. The Court emphasized that a Section 65B certificate must be issued by the person who owned or operated the original device on which the electronic record was first created. It cannot be validly issued by someone whose device merely contains a transferred copy of that record.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a challenge to a Rent Tribunal order where the respondents submitted electronic evidence stored in a pen drive and compact disc. The petitioner argued that the original recording was made on a third party’s device — specifically, Rajat Sancheti’s device — but the Section 65B certificate was issued by respondent no. 2, whose device only held a later transferred copy of the recording. The petitioner submitted that under the law, only the original device owner could issue the certificate to authenticate the evidence.
Legal Precedents Cited
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the matter, relied on authoritative Supreme Court rulings in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal. These rulings firmly establish that the certificate under Section 65B must originate from the person in control of the device on which the electronic record was originally created, which ensures the authenticity and reliability of digital evidence.
Court’s Holding and Impact
The Court held that the certificate issued by respondent no. 2 concerning the transferred copy was invalid and could not render the electronic evidence admissible. However, the Court left a procedural opportunity for the respondents to file a proper and valid certificate issued by the actual owner of the original recording device, thereby allowing the evidence to potentially remain admissible if corrected.
This judgment underscores the critical importance of complying strictly with Section 65B requirements as laid down by the Supreme Court, especially regarding the chain of custody and certification of electronic evidence. Practitioners must ensure that certificates authenticating electronic records emanate from the original device’s controlling person to withstand scrutiny in judicial proceedings.
Conclusion
In the digital era where electronic evidence is increasingly common, the Rajasthan High Court’s clarification provides much-needed guidance and robustness to the procedural requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. This decision serves as a reminder that the integrity of electronic evidence hinges on proper certification from the original source, maintaining the evidentiary standards crucial for justice.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12210/2025
Shwetabh Singhal, Vs M/s J.k And Sons,
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order: 09/09/2025.
Citation: [2025:RJ-JP:36375]
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been
led to the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the
Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (hereinafter referred as
‘the Tribunal’), by which the application submitted by the
respondent No.2 under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent
Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001) has been
allowed and the respondent has been permitted to produce
electronic evidence contained under the Pen Drive and
Compact Disc (CD) bearing exhibit Nos.8 to 44.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has
been issued by the person in whose device the recording was
transferred. Counsel submits that the original recording was
done in the device of one Rajat Sancheti whose certificate
under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been
produced on the record, hence, under these circumstances,
the application submitted by the respondent seeking liberty to
produce electronic evidence is not maintainable and the same
is liable to be rejected. Counsel submits that as per the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Anvar P.V. vs P.K. Basheer reported in AIR 2015 SC 180,
it is necessary that the person who is occupying the device at
the relevant time, the certificate must be issued by the said
person only. Hence, under these circumstances, the order
impugned passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and is
liable to be quashed and set-aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed
the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that it is true that video was recorded in the device
of one Rajat Sancheti, who transferred the same to the device
of the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the recorded video in the
form of Pen Drive and CD was produced on the record of the
Tribunal along with certificate issued by the respondent No.2
under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Counsel
submits that no such objection was ever taken by the
petitioner before the Tribunal. The only objection taken by the
petitioner was that the electronic evidence was produced at a
later stage. Counsel submits that considering the above
factual aspect of the matter, the respondent No.2 was allowed
to lead the electronic evidence along with the certificate
issued by him under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act
by imposing cost of Rs.1500/- upon the respondent No.2,
hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is justified which
requires no interference of this Court and the writ petition is
liable to be rejected.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar
and perused the material available on record.
5. Perusal of the record indicates that an application under
Section 21 of the Act of 2001 has been submitted by the
respondent No.2 against the petitioner before the Tribunal and
during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the said
application so submitted by the respondent, seeking liberty to
produce the electronic evidence in the form of Pen Drive and
CD on the record along with a certificate of one Rajender
Kumar Johri under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was
allowed.
6. This fact is not in dispute that the video in question was
recorded in the device of one Rajat Sancheti and
subsequently, the said video was transferred from his device
to the device of the respondent No.2-applicant-Rajendra
Kumar Johri and he produced the relevant Pen Drive and CD
on the record and the same were marked as Exhibit 8 to 44.
It appears that at a later stage, a certificate under Section 65-
B of the Evidence Act was submitted by the said Rajendra
Kumar Johri in support of the electronic evidence.
7. Now the question which remains for the consideration of
this Court is that ‘Whether it is mandatory that a certificate of
the person, in whose device the original video was recorded,
was required to be submitted under Section 65-B of the
Indian Evidence Act or the person in whose device the
material has been transferred to, is supposed to issue the
certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act ?’
8. The question involved in the instant writ petition is no
more res integra, as the same has been set at rest by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. (supra) in para
No.14, which reads as under:
“14.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 following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the
electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in
which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of
the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable
conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the
Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person
occupying a responsible official position in relation
to the operation of the relevant device.”
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held in para
14(e) of the aforesaid judgment that such certificate has to be
personally signed by the person, who was occupying the
relevant device.
10. The view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Anvar P.V. (supra) was further reiterated by the Apex Court
in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others reported in 2020 (7)
SCC 1 and it has been held in para 51 and 52, which reads as
under:
“51. On an application of the aforesaid maxims to
the present case, it is clear that though Section
65B(4) is mandatory, yet, on the facts of this case,
the respondents, having done everything possible
to obtain the necessary certificate, which was to be
given by a third party over whom the respondents
had no control, must be relieved of the mandatory
obligation contained in the said sub-section.
52. We may hasten to add that Section 65-B does
not speak of the stage at which such certificate must
be furnished to the Court. In Anvar P.V., this Court
did observe that such certificate must accompany
the electronic record when the same is produced in
evidence. We may only add that this is so in cases
where such certificate could be procured by the
person seeking to rely upon an electronic record.
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(4) of the
Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be
given by such person/persons. This, the trial Judge
ought to do when the electronic record is produced
in evidence before him without the requisite
certificate in the circumstances aforementioned. This
is, of course, subject to discretion being exercised in
civil cases in accordance with law, and in accordance
with the requirements of justice on the facts of each
case. When it comes to criminal trials, it is important
to keep in mind the general principle that the
accused must be supplied all documents that the
prosecution seeks to rely upon before
commencement of the trial, under the relevant
sections of the CrPC.”
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that 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 whole electronic device the
evidence has been recorded.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the certificate
issued by the respondent No.2-Rajendra Kumar Johri is not
valid, as the video was not recorded originally in his device.
The video was recorded in the device of Rajat Sancheti whose
certificate was required to be produced on the record, but the
same has not been produced.
13. Since the electronic evidence is available on the record,
the respondents would be at liberty to submit the certificate of
Rajat Sancheti under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
14. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant
writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all
pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
No comments:
Post a Comment