Section 65B certificate mandatory for electronic records, though courts may allow later production in justified cases.

Secondary electronic evidence such as CDs and VCDs is admissible only on compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the certificate under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory condition precedent; general secondary-evidence rules under Sections 63 and 65 do not provide an alternative route. The requirement is not dispensed with, but where a party has taken all possible steps to obtain the certificate and cannot secure it without fault, the court may facilitate later production and avoid prejudice. In the election context, improper acceptance of nomination papers and late presentation, supported by oral and documentary evidence, can sustain setting aside the election where the result is materially affected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether electronic records in the form of CDs/VCDs were admissible without a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (ii) whether the certificate requirement under Section 65B(4) is mandatory yet capable of being secured later where the party has done all that is possible to obtain it; and (iii) whether the election of the returned candidate was liable to be set aside on the evidence that the nomination papers were presented after the prescribed time and were improperly accepted.

Issue (i): whether electronic records in the form of CDs/VCDs were admissible without a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: Sections 65A and 65B form the special statutory regime for proving the contents of electronic records. The general provisions on secondary evidence do not govern admissibility of such records. A certificate under Section 65B(4) is the condition precedent for admitting secondary electronic evidence, and oral evidence cannot replace that requirement. The views treating Sections 63 and 65 as an alternative route for electronic records were disapproved.

Conclusion: The certificate requirement under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence.

Issue (ii): whether the certificate requirement under Section 65B(4) is mandatory yet capable of being secured later where the party has done all that is possible to obtain it.

Analysis: While the requirement is mandatory, the Court held that the stage of production is not fixed by the statute. Where a party cannot procure the certificate despite bona fide efforts and the issuing authority refuses or fails to respond, the court may summon the relevant person and permit production of the certificate at a later stage. The law does not compel impossibilities, and procedural fairness may justify a later cure, especially where no prejudice is shown.

Conclusion: The certificate may be directed to be produced later where the party has done everything possible to secure it, but the statutory requirement itself is not dispensed with.

Issue (iii): whether the election of the returned candidate was liable to be set aside on the evidence that the nomination papers were presented after the prescribed time and were improperly accepted.

Analysis: The impugned judgment did not rest only on electronic evidence; it also relied on oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of the returning officer and the nomination register, which supported the finding that the nomination papers were not presented before 3.00 p.m. The Court also accepted that where the returned candidate's nomination is improperly accepted, the result is treated as materially affected for purposes of Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Conclusion: The election was validly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The law on electronic evidence was authoritatively restated, the contrary views were overruled or clarified, and the election appeal failed because the impugned finding of improper acceptance of nomination was sustained on the evidence as a whole.

Ratio Decidendi: Secondary electronic evidence is admissible only on compliance with Section 65B, and the certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory, though the court may in appropriate cases facilitate its production where the party seeking to rely on the record has no practical control over the certificate-giver.

---