Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan & Justice Navin Sinha in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal reconsidered its earlier judgement in Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal, in which the court had observed that if the electronic evidence was relevant and produced by a person who was not in custody of the device from which the electronic document was generated, requirement of such certificate could not be mandatory under Section 65­B of the Evidence Act.

The Court further also referred to the judgment in Anvar P.V. V/s P.K. Basheer. In which it was observed that electronic evidence by way of primary evidence was covered by Section 62 of the Evidence Act to which procedure of Section 65­B of the Evidence Act was not   admissible. However, for the secondary evidence, procedure of Section 65­B of the Evidence Act was required to be followed.

However, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sharma, while listening to the arguments made in the Arjun Panditrao case opined that as the reliance on electronic evidence is bound to increase an appropriate law has to be structured in this regard.

We are of the considered opinion that in view of Anvar P.V. (supra), the pronouncement of this Court in Shafhi Mohammad (supra) needs reconsideration. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to refer this matter to a larger Bench. Needless to say that there is an element of urgency in the matter” the bench further added.

-India Legal Bureau

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here