Electronic evidence certification under Section 65B(4) is not always mandatory when the device is beyond the producer's control.

Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act are procedural provisions governing proof of electronic records, not a complete exclusion of the general law of evidence. Electronic evidence remains admissible where its authenticity and relevance are established. A certificate under Section 65B(4) is required when the producing party controls the device or system and can furnish it, but where the party is not in possession or control of the device and cannot secure the certificate, proof may proceed under Sections 63 and 65 so that reliable evidence is not excluded merely for want of certification.

---

---

Issues: Whether a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is always mandatory for admitting electronic evidence, particularly when the party producing the evidence is not in possession or control of the device from which it is generated.

Analysis: Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were treated as procedural provisions meant to facilitate proof of electronic records, not as a complete exclusion of the general rules of evidence. The admissibility of electronic evidence depends on its authenticity and relevance, and the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) applies where the producing party is in a position to furnish it because it controls the device or relevant system. Where the party producing the electronic record is not in possession of the device and cannot secure the certificate, resort may be had to the general proof provisions under Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, so that reliable evidence is not shut out merely for want of a certificate.

Conclusion: The certificate under Section 65B(4) is not invariably mandatory, and the requirement may be relaxed where the party producing the electronic evidence is not in control of the device and the interests of justice so require.

---