Certificate u / s 65 B of Evidence Act must be issued by Orignal Device Holder : Rajasthan High Court

Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Must Be Issued by Original Device Holder: Rajasthan High Court

Introduction

The admissibility of electronic evidence has been a subject of continuous judicial scrutiny in India. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governs the procedure for admitting electronic records in courts. A recent judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, has reaffirmed the settled legal principle that the mandatory certificate under Section 65B must be issued by the person who is in control of the original device in which the electronic record was first stored, and not by someone who merely receives or transfers the data to another device.

Background of the Case

The matter before the High Court arose from a criminal proceeding in which the trial court had relied on electronic evidence that was not accompanied by a valid Section 65B certificate from the original device holder. Instead, the certificate had been issued by a person who had access only to a transferred copy of the data. Challenging the trial court’s order, the petitioner argued that the electronic record in question could not be admitted without strict compliance with Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while considering the issue, reiterated that the statutory mandate under Section 65B cannot be diluted, as the provision was enacted to safeguard the authenticity and integrity of electronic evidence.

Court’s Observations

The Court made the following key observations:

Strict Compliance with Section 65B:

Section 65B requires a certificate identifying the electronic record, describing the manner in which it was produced, and affirming that the conditions under Section 65B(2) are satisfied. Such certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the device.

Original Device Holder’s Role:

The Court clarified that the certificate must be issued only by the person who had lawful control over the original electronic device in which the data was first recorded. A person possessing a secondary copy or transferred data cannot validly issue such a certificate.

Authenticity and Reliability:

If the law were to permit certificates from persons holding transferred copies, the reliability of electronic evidence would be compromised. The legislative intent is to ensure that only the original device custodian certifies the genuineness of the data.

Alignment with Supreme Court Precedents

The Rajasthan High Court relied on authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, including:

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473: The Court held that secondary evidence of electronic records is not admissible unless accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4).

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1: A Constitution Bench clarified that the certificate must be issued by the person in control of the original device and reiterated that compliance with Section 65B is mandatory.

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801: Though this case allowed some relaxation, it was later clarified in Arjun Panditrao that Shafhi Mohammad was wrongly decided.

Thus, the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment is in consonance with the Constitution Bench ruling in Arjun Panditrao.

Legal Significance

This ruling has far-reaching implications in criminal trials, matrimonial disputes, corporate fraud cases, and cybercrime prosecutions where electronic records such as call recordings, CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, or e-mails are crucial pieces of evidence. The judgment underscores that:

Only the person in charge of the original device (such as CCTV system, mobile phone, server, or computer) can issue the certificate.

Transferred copies, pen drives, or CDs created from the original source cannot be independently relied upon unless accompanied by a valid 65B certificate from the original source holder.

Courts must reject electronic evidence without proper certification to preserve the sanctity of fair trial and authenticity of records.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision reinforces the jurisprudential position that Section 65B certificates must emanate from the custodian of the original electronic device. This ensures credibility and prevents manipulation of electronic evidence, thereby safeguarding the evidentiary process in the digital era.

By adhering strictly to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the judgment provides clarity to trial courts and litigants, reducing the scope for misuse of electronic records and strengthening the administration of justice.