“Anvar, (2014) 10 SCC 472 made it clear that, special provisions of Sections 65A and 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are a complete code in themselves when it comes to admissibility of evidence of information contained in electronic records and also a written certificate under Section 65B(4) is a sine qua non for admissibility of such evidence. A ‘discordant note’ was soon struck in Tomaso Bruno, (2015) 7 SCC 178. Anvar was not referred to at all. In fact, Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 was adverted to, which was specifically overruled by Anvar. It may also be stated, Section 65B(4) was also not at all adverted to. Hence, declaration of law in Tomaso Bruno following Navjot Sandhu – secondary evidence of contents of a document can also be led under Section 65 to make CCTV footage admissible – would be in teeth of Anvar and cannot be said to be a correct statement of law. The said view is accordingly overruled.”

– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, [Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-20826 of 2017].

_____

Serial bomb blasts took place in Bangalore on 25.07.2008. Several FIRs were registered at Madivala, Koramangala, Byatarayanapura, Kengeri, Ashokanagar, Sampangirama and Adugodi Police Stations. State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 held, non-production of a certificate under Section 65B is a curable defect. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, (2020) 7 SCC 1 held, a certificate under Section 65B can be produced at any stage if trial is not over.

– Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal, State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6548 of 2022] decided on 06.11.2023.