Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s Aum International Inc. and its Regional Director, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the order of the learned Magistrate who failed to consider their objections regarding the admissibility of documents in the nature of electronic or computer record. The petitioners argued that the respondent no.1, The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., had not complied with the mandatory conditions of Section 65-B(2) and (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which are prerequisites for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, which held that the conditions under Section 65-B are mandatory. The respondent no.1's counsel submitted that the Magistrate had considered the objections and passed a reasoned order. However, the High Court found that the Magistrate had not dealt with the specific objections regarding Section 65-B compliance. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration of the objections in light of the law laid down in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Electronic Evidence - Admissibility - Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Mandatory Conditions - The Magistrate failed to consider objections regarding non-compliance with Section 65-B(2) and (4) for electronic records - Held that conditions under Section 65-B are mandatory and must be fulfilled before relying on electronic evidence (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Magistrate committed illegality by not considering objections regarding admissibility of electronic/computer records without compliance with mandatory conditions of Section 65-B(2) and (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration of the objections in light of the law laid down in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer.
Law Points
- Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- mandatory conditions
- electronic record
- computer record
- admissibility
- certificate under Section 65-B(4)
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (01) 88
Criminal Writ Petition No.43 of 2015
Mr. G. Agni for petitioners, Mr. V. P. Thali for respondent no.1
M/s Aum International Inc. and Shri Apurva Suresh Chaphekar
The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. and State of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of the learned Magistrate regarding admissibility of electronic/computer records.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the Magistrate's order and direction to consider objections regarding non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Filing Reason
The learned Magistrate did not consider the objections taken by the petitioners with regard to admissibility of documents in the nature of electronic or computer record, specifically non-compliance with Section 65-B(2) and (4).
Previous Decisions
The learned Magistrate passed an order without dealing with the objections regarding Section 65-B compliance.
Issues
Whether the learned Magistrate committed illegality by not considering objections regarding admissibility of electronic/computer records without compliance with mandatory conditions of Section 65-B(2) and (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: The Magistrate ignored the mandatory conditions of Section 65-B(2) and (4) as held in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.
Respondent no.1: The Magistrate considered the objections and passed a reasoned order.
Ratio Decidendi
The conditions under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are mandatory and must be fulfilled by the party seeking to rely on electronic or computer records. The Magistrate must consider objections regarding non-compliance before admitting such evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Magistrate has committed serious illegality by not considering the objections taken by the petitioners with regard to admissibility of documents in the nature of electronic or computer record.
Now it is well settled law as can be seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer, (2014)10 SCC 473 that Section 65-B conditions being mandatory in nature, must be fulfilled by the party seeking to place reliance upon the documents in the nature of electronic or computer record.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed objections before the learned Magistrate regarding admissibility of electronic/computer records under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Magistrate passed an order without considering these objections. The petitioners then filed the present criminal writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 65-B, 65-B(2), 65-B(4)
