Need True Print of Case Law

A.Dear Client,
In the stated case, The Division Bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with the interpretation of Section 65B of the Evidence Act referred the case to the larger bench of the Supreme Court in view of the conflict between Shafhi Mohammad's case and Anvar P.V.'s case on the issue of mandatory requirement of certification under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act for admissibility of electronic evidence. The Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V.'s case held that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are satisfied. Thus, in case of electronic evidence stored in CDs, CDs, chips, etc.; the same shall be accompanied with the certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. Notably, looking at it from a practical standpoint, the much needed clarification provided by the Supreme Court on the options available to the party who cannot obtain the certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act will certainly help parties circumvent objections on the admissibility of electronic evidence.

Thankyou