Discussion
Which of the following statements is not true with respect to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ?
Answer: D
The statement that is not true is the one about State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu.
In Navjot Sandhu (2005), the Parliament attack case, the Supreme Court held that electronic records such as call records could be proved by secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act even without a Section 65B certificate, if their authenticity was otherwise established, for example through witnesses. It did not say they could be admitted as prima facie evidence without any authentication, so the statement misdescribes the case.
The other statements are accurate. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) held that Section 65B is a complete code and overruled Navjot Sandhu on this point, and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020), a three-judge bench, reaffirmed that the Section 65B(4) certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility.
Post your comment
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Examination Categories
- SSC Exams
- Banking Exams
- Teaching Exams
- Civil Services Exams
- Railways Exams
- Engineering Recruitment Exams
- Defence Exams
- State Government Exams
- Police Exams
- Insurance Exams
- Nursing Exams
- Other Government Exams
- NRA CET
- PG Entrance Exams
- Campus Placement
- MBA Entrance Exams
- CUET and UG Entrance
- Judiciary Exams
- Regulatory Body Exams
- Software Development