Strict proof of electronic records and candidate consent required before election-law corrupt practice can be established.

Electronic records can be proved only by strict compliance with the statutory requirements for electronic evidence, including the prescribed certificate; general secondary-evidence rules do not override that regime. The commentary also explains that a corrupt practice based on a leaflet and electronic material must be supported by clear, cogent and credible evidence linking the candidate to publication or distribution with consent. Mere knowledge or suspicion is insufficient, and the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the facts discussed, the electronic material was inadmissible and the remaining evidence did not establish consent or corrupt practice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether secondary evidence of electronic records is admissible without compliance with the statutory certificate requirement; (ii) whether the leaflet and electronic material proved a corrupt practice under the election law, including publication or distribution with the candidate's consent.

Issue (i): Whether secondary evidence of electronic records is admissible without compliance with the statutory certificate requirement.

Analysis: Electronic records are treated as documentary evidence, but their contents can be proved only in the manner prescribed for electronic records. The special provisions governing electronic evidence override the general rules on secondary evidence. A computer output such as a CD, VCD or similar medium is admissible only when the statutory conditions are satisfied and the required certificate accompanies the record. The earlier view permitting recourse to the general secondary-evidence provisions without compliance with these requirements was overruled.

Conclusion: Secondary evidence of electronic records is inadmissible unless the statutory requirements, including the certificate, are satisfied.

Issue (ii): Whether the leaflet and electronic material proved a corrupt practice under the election law, including publication or distribution with the candidate's consent.

Analysis: The allegation of corrupt practice depended mainly on a leaflet and on CDs containing songs, announcements and speeches. The CDs were inadmissible, and the remaining evidence did not establish a reliable chain linking the returned candidate to the printing, publication or distribution of the leaflet. The distinction between knowledge, connivance and consent was emphasized, and consent had to be proved by clear, cogent and credible evidence. The evidence fell short of proving that the leaflet was published or distributed with the candidate's consent, and the charge of corrupt practice had to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The corrupt practice under the election law was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the material relied upon was either inadmissible or insufficient to establish the alleged corrupt practice, so the election result was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Secondary evidence of electronic records is admissible only on strict compliance with the statutory conditions for electronic evidence, including the prescribed certificate, and a charge of corrupt practice based on publication requires proof of consent by cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

---