Question

The Supreme Court judgment held that compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admitting secondary evidence of electronic records is:

• A. Mandatory as held in the case of Anvar v. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473
• B. Discretionary upon the trial court judge to insist or waive the requirement
• C. To be read together with the mode of proof of non-electronic documents under Sections 62–65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• D. None of the above
• A. Admitting the document, marking the document, authenticating the document
• B. Authenticating the document, receiving evidence of its contents, marking the document
• C. Proving the contents of the document, authenticating the document, marking the document
• D. Marking the document, authenticating the document, receiving the document as evidence
• A. The act of authentication of a document
• B. The act of proving contents of a document
• C. The act of corroborating the evidence of a document
• D. The act of solving the problem of hearsay associated with documents
• A. Cannot be admitted
• B. Generally cannot be admitted except when accepted as admissible secondary evidence under Section 65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• C. Generally can be admitted except when barred by the rule against hearsay
• D. Generally can be admitted except when considered unreliable due to impeachment of the witness
• A. Never admit such evidence
• B. May only admit such evidence where it is satisfied that procuring such a certificate would result in unfair prejudice, and where the document is crucial evidence
• C. May admit such evidence if satisfied that the party adducing such evidence was unable to procure the certificate despite best efforts and that it was impossible for them to do so
• D. Admit such evidence after a scrutiny of the fact it purports to prove, and only do so for proof of relevant facts, and never for the proof of facts in issue as defined under Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• A. An appellate court should declare the evidence inadmissible in line with the mandatory nature of Section 65B.
• B. An appellate court should remand the matter to trial declaring the said evidence inadmissible.
• C. An objection to the method of proof cannot be raised at the appellate stage as the original party could have cured the defect at trial.
• D. Since the respondent did not object to admissibility, the document automatically stands proved.
• A. That in cases of criminal conspiracy, the method of proof of the conspiracy is controlled by Section 10, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and not Section 65B.
• B. That irrespective of compliance with Section 65B, contents of electronic documents could be proved through Sections 62–65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• C. That electronic documents, being a special class of general documents, had to be proved through expert opinion under Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• D. That the document sought to be proved must first be marked and then admitted into evidence for its contents, and that this sequence may not be reversed.
• A. The judgment is against binding precedent of a higher court or larger bench.
• B. The judgment is against binding provisions of law applicable to the subject.
• C. Both (A) and (B)
• D. Neither (A) nor (B)
• A. Yes, since one attesting witness has not recalled the execution, any other evidence is admissible under Section 71, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• B. No, since another attesting witness who has not been summoned must first be examined under Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• C. No, since one attesting witness has denied execution, no other evidence can prove the Will.
• D. Yes, since the scribe is a direct witness to the execution of the Will, and his evidence is admissible under Section 60, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• A. It must generally be produced at the time of production of documents, typically with the chargesheet.
• B. If missing or deficient, it may be supplied at a later stage in the trial, and the court can allow it.
• C. Any application during trial to add documents must be examined to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused.
• D. All the above

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Special provision in the Evidence Act.
Sections 65A and 65B specifically govern admissibility of electronic records. They override general provisions (Sections 62–65) through a non-obstante clause. Step 2: Judicial position.
In Anvar v. Basheer, reaffirmed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, compliance with Section 65B (including the certificate requirement) is mandatory for admitting secondary electronic evidence. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, \(\boxed{\text{(A)}}\) is correct.

Answer 2

Step 1: Procedural order.
First, the document must be admitted into evidence by the court. Second, it is marked for identification. Third, its authenticity is proved. 
Step 2: Why not other orders.
Other sequences either invert the process or omit the requirement of admission prior to marking. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
Hence, \(\boxed{\text{(A)}}\) matches the correct procedural order.

Answer 3

In the context of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, the issue of the admissibility of electronic records is addressed primarily by Section 65B. This section provides guidelines for treating electronic records as evidence. Fundamental to the understanding of Section 65B is the distinction between "original" electronic records and their copies.

When the original device containing the electronic record is produced in court, the requirement for a certificate under Section 65B(4) is waived. In such situations, the owner of the device must provide testimony to establish ownership and operation of the device. This testimony serves a specific legal function.

The act performed by the device owner during testimony is best understood as "The act of authentication of a document." Authentication is a process of validating that an item of evidence is genuine. In the realm of electronic records, the owner’s testimony verifies that the electronic device is indeed the original source of the data entered as evidence.

Thus, this process ensures that the document is what its proponent claims it to be, proving the authenticity of the electronic record. By differentiating between original records and copies, the law underscores the importance of authentication in upholding the integrity of evidence in legal proceedings.

Answer 4

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, outlines the rules regarding the admissibility of oral evidence in relation to the contents of documents. According to the options and the context provided, the most suitable answer is that oral evidence as to the contents of documents generally cannot be admitted unless it qualifies as admissible secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Let's delve deeper into the relevant legal provisions:

1. Oral Evidence and Documentary Evidence: Generally, the contents of documents must be proved by the documents themselves and not through oral testimonies. This is rooted in the principle that the best evidence of the content of a document is the document itself.

2. Sections 62 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 62 specifies what constitutes primary evidence, which is essentially the document itself. Section 65 outlines situations where secondary evidence (including oral statements about the document) is admissible. This can include cases where the original is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable.

Section 65 permits secondary evidence when:

• The original is shown or appears to be in possession of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or any person legally bound to produce it, who fails to do so.
• The original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time.

3. Electronic Records and Section 65B: For electronic records, special provisions under Section 65B apply. It requires a specific procedure to be followed, including presenting the electronic record itself or a certifying process for copies as valid secondary evidence.

4. Judicial Interpretation: In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash K. Gorantyal, the court emphasized that for electronic documents, Section 65B is the governing provision, hence reiterating that oral evidence regarding electronic records is generally inadmissible unless it meets the criteria set under Section 65B.

Answer 5

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, plays a crucial role in determining the admissibility and proof of electronic records in legal proceedings. When primary evidence of an electronic record cannot be produced, and secondary evidence is not supported by a Section 65B(4) certificate, there are specific guidelines that a court may follow.

The issue concerns Section 65B, which outlines special provisions for electronic records, distinct from Sections 62 to 65 that deal with traditional evidence. Section 65B(1) introduces the concept of an "original" electronic record stored in a computer and the importance of computer output as evidence. Typically, a Section 65B(4) certificate is required if secondary evidence is presented.

However, under exceptional circumstances explained in judicial interpretations, the court may admit secondary evidence without the Section 65B(4) certificate. According to the scenario provided:

1. Exceptional Admission: The court may admit such evidence if:

• The party presenting the evidence could not obtain the certificate despite making best efforts.
• It was impossible for them to procure the certificate.

This aligns with the judgment in the case of **Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash K. Gorantyal**. The Supreme Court outlined these exceptions, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and the feasibility of obtaining the requisite certificate.

2. Original Document: If the original electronic device that stores the information is produced in court, the certificate becomes unnecessary. This is feasible if the owner of the device testifies to its authenticity and operation.

In conclusion, the legal framework allows flexibility in proving electronic records, accounting for practical difficulties, while ensuring due diligence is observed. The correct approach involves considering all efforts to procure the certificate and recognizing situations where physical or practical impossibility may justify the absence of a Section 65B(4) certificate.

Answer 6

Step 1: Identify the nature of the defect.
Want of a Section 65B certificate for secondary electronic evidence is a defect in the mode/method of proof, not an inherent inadmissibility of the document itself. 
Step 2: Rule from Sonu.
The Supreme Court clarified that objections to mode of proof must be taken at the trial, when the defect is curable. If a party keeps silent and allows the evidence in, it cannot later raise the objection for the first time in appeal. ⇒ Appellate challenge is barred. 
Step 3: Test the options.
(A) Wrong — ignores waiver/acquiescence principle in Sonu.
(B) Wrong — no remand necessary; the right to object was waived.
(C) Correct — captures Sonu: no appellate objection to curable method-of-proof defects.
(D) Overbroad — absence of objection does not mean the document is “automatically proved” for all purposes; it only forecloses the belated objection. \[ \boxed{\text{(C)}} \]

Answer 7

Step 1: Special regime for electronic records.
Sections 65A–65B create a self-contained code for electronic evidence. - General provisions (Secs. 62–65) do not apply to secondary electronic records unless 65B is satisfied.
Step 2: What Navjot Sandhu had said.
It allowed proof of electronic records via the general secondary-evidence provisions even without a 65B certificate. 
Step 3: What Anvar held.
It overruled that view, making 65B compliance mandatory for secondary electronic evidence (later affirmed and clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar). 
Step 4: Select the option.
Only (B) states the specific holding that was overruled. - \(\boxed{\text{(B)}}\).

Answer 8

Step 1: Meaning of per incuriam.
A decision is per incuriam if rendered in ignorance of a binding statute/rule or a binding precedent of a coordinate larger bench or higher court. Step 2: Apply to the options.
(A) Captures the precedent limb ⇒ correct.
(B) Captures the statutory-provision limb ⇒ correct.
Therefore (C) “Both (A) and (B)” is right; (D) is wrong. 
Step 3: Conclusion.
\(\boxed{\text{(C)}}\) is the correct choice.

Answer 9

Step 1: Section 68 requirement.
For proving a Will, at least one attesting witness must be called to prove execution (Section 68). 
Step 2: What if the attesting witness cannot recall execution?
If such a witness either denies or fails to recollect execution, Section 71 permits other evidence to be given to prove execution. 
Step 3: Apply to facts.
Here, the attesting witness said he did not remember the due execution. This is a case of failure to recollect, triggering Section 71, allowing the scribe to be examined. 
Step 4: Eliminate wrong options.
(B) is wrong because Section 71 does not require exhausting all attesting witnesses if one has failed to recall.
(C) is wrong — denial vs. non-recollection are distinct; here it is non-recollection.
(D) is incomplete — while the scribe can be examined, it’s under Section 71, not just Section 60. \[ \boxed{\text{(A)}} \]

Answer 10

Step 1: Timing as per precedent.
The certificate should ideally accompany the electronic record when first produced (often with the chargesheet). 
Step 2: Flexibility in production.
The Court has allowed late submission if justified, provided it does not cause prejudice to the accused. 
Step 3: Safeguards during trial.
When allowing additional documents or certificates, courts must ensure the defence is not unfairly prejudiced and has adequate opportunity to respond. 
Step 4: Options analysis.
All three statements (A), (B), and (C) are correct; hence (D) is right. \[ \boxed{\text{(D)}} \]