Dr. K. Shivaram Senior Advocate Rahul K. Hakani Sashank Dundu Advocates
1.Evidence - Admissibility of electronic
evidence without certification as required under the provision of the
Act–Valid. [Evidence Act, 1872; Section 64B]
Shafhi Mohammad vs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh SLP (CRL.) No. 2302 of 2017 dt. 30/1/2018 (SC)
An apprehension was expressed on the
question of applicability of conditions u/s.65B(4) of the Evidence Act to the effect that if a statement was given
in evidence, a certificate was required in terms of the said provision from a
person occupying a responsible position in relation to operation of the
relevant device or the management of relevant activities.
It was argued
that if the electronic evidence was relevant and produced by a person who was
not in custody of the device from which the electronic document was generated,
requirement of such certificate could not be mandatory, since if this is not so
permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of
authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document
is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of the certificate.
clarified the legal position on the subject of the admissibility of the electronic
evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which
the document is produced. It held that such party cannot be required to produce
certificate u/s. 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement
of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of
justice so justifies.