S. 65-B Of Indian Evidence Act Only Pertains To Production Of Electronic Records, Not Physical Documents: Jharkhand High Court Clarifies

The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to the presentation of electronic evidence, and not physical documents.

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, presiding over the case observed, “Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is mainly for the purpose of treating the document as secondary evidence depending upon the availability of the conditions mentioned therein. … Section 65-B of the Act is for the purpose of treating the electronic goods as evidence. One of the provisions of Section 65-B, particularly under Section 65-B(4), is that while accepting the electronic device, a certification is to be given by its custodian,” Justice Prasad added.

The observation was made during the hearing of a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, which challenged an order from the Additional Civil Judge rejecting a petition filed under Section 65 of the Act.

In this case, the Additional Civil Judge rejected a petition filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) to accept photocopies of bank drafts and money receipts as secondary evidence. The rejection was based on the plaintiff's inability to prove their authenticity, as she could not provide certification from the issuing Bank.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the rejection was improper. It was contended that the petition was not filed under Section 65-B of the Act, which pertains to electronic records, but under Section 65, which deals with secondary evidence of documents. It was claimed that the court incorrectly treated the petition as one filed under Section 65-B and did not consider the legal issues as per Section 65. Therefore, the order contains an error and is not legally sustainable.

The Court in its order observed, “The purpose for making reference of these provisions is that the learned Court has assigned the reasons while rejecting the petition dated 20.12.2022 that the plaintiff could not produce any certification from Bank from where items were issued.”

The aforesaid findings, the Court opined, appeared to be made on the premise that the petition so filed was under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court further observed that since the provision of Section 65-B was with respect to production of electronic goods, but as per the prayer made in the petition, the electronic goods were not the subject matter, rather it was in the form of documents, i.e., the photocopies of four demand drafts issued by the Bank and two money receipts, which were sought to be produced by way of secondary evidence, meaning thereby, "the said documents will come under the fold of Section 65 and that is the reason the petition has also been filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the learned Trial Court, on misconception, has rejected the said petition having beyond the scope of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act."

“This Court, therefore, while exercising the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is of the view that it is a case where the error is apparent on the face of the order dated 22.12.2022 is evident due to rejection of the petition on the premise of applicability of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”, the Court held while disposing of the petition and quashing the order. The Court also directed the Trial Court to pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law.

Case Title- Smt. Meena Kumari Sinha v. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 112

Click here to read/download the Judgment