Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

Facts

• The case arose from an election dispute where video recordings were sought to be produced as evidence of corrupt practices.
• The recordings were stored on electronic devices (CCTV and mobile phones).
• The party producing the recordings did not furnish the S.65B(4) certificate from the person in charge of the computer or device.
• The opposing party objected to admissibility citing lack of certificate as per Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014).
• A reference was made to the larger bench to settle whether Anvar P.V. was correctly decided.

Issue

1. Whether the requirement of a certificate under S.65B(4) IEA for admissibility of electronic evidence is mandatory, and what remedy exists when the device is not in the control of the party seeking to produce the evidence?

Held

• The requirement of S.65B(4) certificate is mandatory and not merely procedural; Anvar P.V. was correctly decided.
• Electronic evidence produced without the certificate is inadmissible regardless of its probative value.
• However, the court has power under S.165 IEA to direct the adverse party to produce the certificate where the device is in their possession.
• The court can also summon the custodian of the device to furnish the certificate.
• This qualification balances the mandatory requirement with the interest of justice where evidence would otherwise be impossible to produce.

Ratio Decidendi

Electronic records are inherently susceptible to tampering and alteration. The certificate under S.65B(4) operates as a threshold authenticity guarantee, certifying the conditions of the device, the process of reproduction, and the reliability of the output. Making this requirement mandatory ensures that courts do not act on potentially corrupted digital material. The safety valve of judicial power to direct certificate production prevents the rule from becoming an instrument of injustice where a party in possession of the device refuses to cooperate.