Section 65B certification must accompany electronic evidence at marking stage, while handwriting expert opinion may be refused if signature is admitted.

Electronic records may be produced later with the required Section 65B certificate, because the certificate is needed when the record is marked in evidence, not necessarily at the time of filing the request; refusal to permit such production and consequential recall of the witness was therefore unsustainable. Handwriting expert opinion under Section 45 was unnecessary where the signature on the cheque was not disputed, so a request to examine the age or other writings on the cheque could be refused. The discussion emphasizes that admissibility requirements for electronic evidence are stage-specific, while expert opinion will not be ordered where the admitted signature makes such opinion of little utility.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the application to produce electronic records without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was justified, and whether the witness could be recalled to adduce further evidence; (ii) Whether the application seeking handwriting expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was liable to be allowed.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the application to produce electronic records without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was justified, and whether the witness could be recalled to adduce further evidence.

Analysis: The requirement of a certificate under Section 65B is to be satisfied at the time the electronic record is marked in evidence. Absence of the certificate at the stage of filing the application does not by itself justify rejection of permission to produce the documents later along with the requisite certificate. Since the accused was seeking an opportunity to prove his defence and the request was linked with further evidence through the examined witness, recall of the witness became consequential.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was unsustainable, and the witness was to be recalled to permit further evidence with the certificate.

Issue (ii): Whether the application seeking handwriting expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was liable to be allowed.

Analysis: Expert opinion on handwriting was unnecessary where the signature on the cheque was not disputed. In those circumstances, seeking an expert opinion on the age of handwriting or on other writings on the cheque did not furnish a valid basis to reopen the matter.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of permitting production of electronic documents with the statutory certificate and consequential recall of the witness, while the refusal to seek handwriting expert opinion was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is required at the stage of marking electronic evidence, and where the signature on the disputed instrument is admitted, handwriting expert opinion may be refused as unnecessary.

---