Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.39 seconds)
M/S Icici Bank Limited vs Kamini Sharma & Anr on 31 January, 2018 cites

Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014

A Division Bench of this Court in Kundan Singh Vs. State also, on a reading of Anvar P.V. supra, disagreed with the view taken in Ankur Chawla supra and held that the words "produced in evidence" did not postulate or propound a ratio that the computer output when reproduced as a RFA 297/2015 Page 11 of 16 paper print out or on optical or magnetic media must be simultaneously certified by an authorised person under Section 65-B(4). It was held that all that is necessary is that the person giving the certificate under Section 65-B(4) should be in a position to certify and state that the electronic record meets the stipulations and conditions mentioned in Section 65-B(2), identify the electronic record, describe the manner in which computer output was produced and also give particulars of the device involved in production of the electronic record for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was prepared by the computer. It was further held that emails are downloaded and computer output, in the form of paper prints, are taken every day; these emails may become relevant and important electronic evidence subsequently; it is difficult to conceive and accept that the emails would be inadmissible, if the official who downloaded them and had taken printouts had failed to, on that occasion or simultaneously record a certificate under Section 65-B. .................
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 1156 - Full Document

Kundan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 April, 1981

A Division Bench of this Court in Kundan Singh Vs. State also, on a reading of Anvar P.V. supra, disagreed with the view taken in Ankur Chawla supra and held that the words "produced in evidence" did not postulate or propound a ratio that the computer output when reproduced as a RFA 297/2015 Page 11 of 16 paper print out or on optical or magnetic media must be simultaneously certified by an authorised person under Section 65-B(4). It was held that all that is necessary is that the person giving the certificate under Section 65-B(4) should be in a position to certify and state that the electronic record meets the stipulations and conditions mentioned in Section 65-B(2), identify the electronic record, describe the manner in which computer output was produced and also give particulars of the device involved in production of the electronic record for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was prepared by the computer. It was further held that emails are downloaded and computer output, in the form of paper prints, are taken every day; these emails may become relevant and important electronic evidence subsequently; it is difficult to conceive and accept that the emails would be inadmissible, if the official who downloaded them and had taken printouts had failed to, on that occasion or simultaneously record a certificate under Section 65-B. .................
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 79 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Om Parkash Sharma vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, Delhi on 24 April, 2000

19. The loan recall notice in this case could not have been produced in original by the Plaintiff bank. All the other original documents, namely loan documents etc., have been ignored by the Trial Court. No reason exists to disbelieve the statement of accounts filed by the Plaintiff bank which is duly certified under BBE Act which is as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Evidence Act and Section 4 of the BBE Act. The insertion of Section 2A to the BBE Act deals with printouts of bank statements and the copies that are certified are deemed to be certified copies under the said Act. This provision is similar to Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. A Single Judge of this Court in Om Prakash v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2017 VII AD (Del) 649 held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 117 - Full Document
1