Mere Assertion Of 'No Editing' Can't Make Electronic Record Admissible Without Valid S.65B Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the mere assertion that no editing or modification was made in the electronic evidence cannot substitute the statutory mandate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of electronic records. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 238]Per Section 65B of the Act, the electronic records are admissible only when they are accompanied by a...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the mere assertion that no editing or modification was made in the electronic evidence cannot substitute the statutory mandate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of electronic records. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 238]
Per Section 65B of the Act, the electronic records are admissible only when they are accompanied by a specific authentication certificate.
The bench of Justice Amit Seth observed:
"Accordingly, it is only upon proper compliance of the requirements under Section 65-B(2) and Section 65-B(4) that the electronic record acquires admissibility in evidence. Mere assertion that no editing or alteration has been carried out cannot substitute compliance with the statutory mandate contained in Section 65-B(2) and Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. The certificate, accordingly, is deficient in fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B(4)".
A miscellaneous petition was filed challenging the order of September 14, 2022, wherein the petitioner's prayer, during the course of Mangilal's (defence witness 1) evidence, seeking permission to get a CD marked as an exhibit, was rejected.
The petitioner also challenged the order of October 29, 2022, wherein, during the course of evidence of Rahul Solanki (defence witness 2), a similar prayer made by the petitioner was rejected.
Per the facts of the case, the respondent had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction for the disputed land in District Morena. The petitioner filed a counterclaim in the said suit seeking relief of a declaration and permanent injunction, claiming that he had been in possession since 1984.
During the trial, an application under Order 14 Rule 1 of CPC was filed seeking to take on record a CD prepared by the videographer. Along with the said application, a certificate under Section 65B of the Act was also filed. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court dated September 12, 2022, with a reservation that the admissibility of said CB in evidence shall be considered at the stage of evidence.
In the chief examination of Mangilal, he sought leave of the Trial Court to get the CD marked as an exhibit, which was rejected on the grounds that a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act does not fulfil the requirements of law, and therefore, the CD was inadmissible.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the certificate furnished along with the CD and in support of their application clearly certified that the deponent therein runs a Computer shop named 'Rahul Computer' and prepared the CD on the date mentioned therein.
The counsel further claimed that while transferring the video clips from Mangilal he video clips were of 1 minute 40 seconds, 1 minute 24 seconds, and 1 minute 42 seconds. While transferring the said video clips from the mobile phone of Mangilal, the petitioner claimed that he had neither altered nor edited the same.
The counsel further argued that the inadmissibility of the CD ought to have been examined at the Trial and, therefore, the application to have it admitted on record should be allowed. Further, the counsel argued that merely stating the certificate does not fulfill legal requirement is not a reason enough to decline marking the CD as an exhibit.
The court noted that the primary issue for consideration was "whether the Learned Trial Court's order declining to exhibit the CD tendered by the petitioners holding the same as inadmissible was in accordance with the requirements set out in Section 65-A and Section 65- B of the Evidence Act?"
Referring to the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the bench noted that to produce a CD containing footage recorded from a mobile phone, it is mandatory to produce the requisite certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, because the CD in question is a copy of the video clips originally recorded in Mangilal's mobile phone.
Therefore, the court held that the CD falls within the meaning of "computer output" under Section 65 B and is a secondary electronic evidence.
Regarding the certificate issued by Rahul Solanki, the court noted that the Section 65 B certificate does not certify the mandatory requirements under subclause 2 of the provision.
The bench further elucidated, "the mandate of certificate under Section 65-B is intended to establish the source, authenticity and reliability of the electronic record before it is permitted to be read in evidence. This is because electronic records are inherently susceptible to alteration, editing and manipulation, and hence, strict compliance with the conditions incorporated under Section 65-B assumes significance. Accordingly, it is only upon proper compliance of the requirements under Section 65-B(2) and Section 65-B(4) that the electronic record acquires admissibility in evidence".
Further, the court rejected the argument that since the CD was taken on record, it was bound to be marked as an exhibit and noted that the Trial Court had reserved the question regarding the CD's admissibility, as the plaintiff had raised an objection on its admissibility.
The bench reiterated that an objection of admissibility of a document should be raised before such a document is admitted by the Court under Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC. Therefore, the bench held
"when the very admissibility of a document is dependent upon fulfilment of a statutory mandate, the Court is not precluded from examining such admissibility at the stage when the document is tendered in evidence. In the present case, admissibility of the CD itself was contingent upon compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the learned Trial Court cannot be said to have committed any error in examining whether the mandatory statutory requirements stood fulfilled before permitting the CD to be exhibited, that too, when a specific objection in this regard was raised by the plaintiff/respondent".
Therefore, the bench concluded that the order of October 29, 2022, does not suffer from any illegality, and thus the orders of the Trial Courts were upheld, and the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Mangilal v Nandkishore Sharma, MP-5888-2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 238
For Petitioners: Advocate Mahesh Goyal
For Respondent: Senior Advocate Naval Kumar Gupta and Advocate Anugrah Gupta