Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for respondent. Perused the order under challenge.

5. The petitioner-defendant intends to lead rebuttal evidence by placing reliance on the accounts maintained in the system. The petitioner has filed an application seeking production of those documents by contending that he intends to adduce rebuttal evidence by placing reliance on the same and has furnished the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner is placing reliance on eleven computer generated statement of accounts of the petitioner-company. The Court while rejecting the application has virtually misread the provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. If the petitioner intends to place reliance on the computer generated statements, then this Court is unable to understand as to how the petitioner can be directed to secure original of the data which is stored on desktop. When a document prepared by its maker using a computer is sought to be given in evidence, the contents may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. There cannot be originals of computer generated data. The question is as to whether the documents which are sought to be produced have any evidentiary value or not has to be tested only after full fledged trial. Therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable.