Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.20 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 63 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014
In the case of Anvar P.V vs P.K Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10
SCC 473, Civil Appeal No. 4226/2012, decided by Supreme Court on
18/09/2014, it was held by three Judges Bench of Supreme Court that any
documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence
Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A of said Act, can be proved only in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of said Act;
CS259/2009
M/s Netco Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Eleind Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 30
Section 65 B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record and the
purpose of these provisions is to sanctify a secondary evidence in
electronic form, generated by a computer. It was also held that electronic
records are more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition,
excision, etc., so without safeguards taken to ensure the source and
authenticity, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead
to travesty of justice. Also was held that the Evidence Act does not
contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence
if requirements under Section 65B of The Evidence Act are not complied
with. Following are the four specified conditions under Section 65B (2)
of the Evidence Act: (i) the electronic record containing the information
should have been produced by the computer during the period over which
the same was regularly used to store or process information for the
purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person
having lawful control over the use of that computer; (ii) the information
of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the
information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary
course of the said activity; (iii) during the material part of the said
period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not
CS259/2009
M/s Netco Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Eleind Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 30
operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected
either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and (iv) the information
contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the
information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said
activity. It was also held in aforesaid precedent that 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. It was also held in aforesaid precedent that the
evidence relating to electronic record, being a special provision, the
general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65
of The Indian Evidence Act shall yield to be same; Generalia specialibus
CS259/2009
M/s Netco Cable Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Eleind Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 30
non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law.
Section 59 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) vs Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru on 4 August, 2005
It was
also held that Section 63 and 65 of The Indian Evidence Act have no
application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record;
the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B of The Indian
Evidence Act, so to that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of
secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by the
Supreme Court in case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu alias
Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 does not lay down the correct legal
position, which requires to be overruled and was accordingly overruled. It
was also held that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence
shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section
65B of The Indian Evidence Act are satisfied. It was also held that in the
case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied with the
certificate in terms of Section 65 B of The Indian Evidence Act obtained
at the time of taking of document, without which, the secondary evidence
pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
1