Discussion
In which judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that a party, who is desirous of proving electronic evidence but does not have access to the device from which, the document was produced, is not required to produce and prove the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act:-
Answer: D
The judgment is Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (printed 'Shafi Mohd.'), decided on 30 January 2018.
A two-judge bench held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is procedural and can be relaxed: a party who is not in possession or control of the device from which the electronic document was produced cannot be required to produce such a certificate.
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) had held the certificate mandatory for secondary electronic evidence, overruling Navjot Sandhu (2005) on that point. Shafhi Mohammad's relaxation was itself later overruled by a three-judge bench in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020), which restored the Anvar rule, but in 2018, when this paper was set, Shafhi Mohammad was the case for the proposition asked.
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