Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Sh. Sunil Chauhan, further deposed as PW-1 and relied upon the following documents in evidence :-

1. Computer generated ROC certificate, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Computer generated master data of the plaintiff company, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/2.
3. Computer generated GST registration certificate of plaintiff company, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/3
4. The original Board Resolution of plaintiff company, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/4.
5. Computer generated master data of defendant company, which is now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/5.
6. Computer generated copy of 3 debit notes, which are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/6 (Colly.)
7. Computer generated copy of 16 purchase orders, which are now collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly.)
8. Computer generated copy of 16 invoices, which are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)
9. The copies of e-mail exchanged between the plaintiff company and the defendant company, which are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly.), 22 pages.

44. As most of the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff like Computer generated master data of defendant company (Ex.PW-1/5), Computer generated copy of 16 purchase orders (Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly.)), Computer generated copy of 16 invoices, (Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)), copies of e-mail exchanged between the plaintiff company and the defendant company (Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly.)), True copy of email of legal notice (Ex.PW-1/11), Computer copies of two postal tracking reports (Ex.PW-1/14 (Colly.)), and computer copy of statement of account of the defendant in plaintiff's book of account, duly certified by the plaintiff (Ex.PW-1/15) relied upon by the Plaintiff are computer generated documents are electronic records, their admissibility must also be tested in light of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the law governing the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B is to be considered. It is well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, decided on 18.09.2014, reported as [2014] 11 SCR 399, that Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 63 BSA) constitute a complete and exhaustive code governing the admissibility of electronic evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that any information contained in an electronic record, sought to be relied upon in evidence, is admissible only if the mandatory requirements of Section 65B are strictly complied with. In particular, the production of a certificate under Section 65B(4), identifying the electronic record, describing the manner of its production, furnishing particulars of the device involved, and certifying that the conditions stipulated under Section 65B(2) are satisfied, is a sine qua non for admissibility. Oral evidence or secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be substituted for the statutory certificate prescribed under Section 65B(4). Any contrary view permitting admissibility of electronic evidence without compliance of Section 65B(4) is legally unsustainable, and non-compliance with the said provision renders the electronic evidence inadmissible in law. The relevant paras are reproduced hereinafter:

46. This position of law has been reaffirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sundar @ Sundarrajan vs. State by Inspector of Police, decided on 21.03.2023, reported as 2023 LiveLaw (SC)

217. The relevant portion is reproduced below:

"37. Therefore, the law is now settled: a Section 65B certificate is mandatory in terms of this Court's judgment in Anvar P.V. as confirmed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar."

47. After applying the settled position of law to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has not placed on record any Section 65B Certificate to prove all the electronic evidence upon which he has relied. Consequently, the electronic records sought to be proved through Computer generated master data of the plaintiff company, (Ex.PW-1/2), Computer generated master data of defendant company (Ex.PW-1/5), Computer generated copy of 16 invoices, (Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.)), copies of e-mail exchanged between the plaintiff company and the defendant company (Ex.PW-1/9 (Colly.)), True copy of email of legal notice (Ex.PW-1/11), Computer copies of two postal tracking reports (Ex.PW-1/14 (Colly.)), and statement of account (Ex.PW-1/15) without any certificate of electronic evidence cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence, and the same are liable to be excluded from consideration.