“Anvar, (2014) 10 SCC 472 made it clear that, the 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, the declaration of law in Tomaso Bruno following Navjot Sandhu that, secondary evidence of the contents of a document can also be led under Section 65, to make CCTV footage admissible, would be in the teeth of Anvar and cannot be said to be a correct statement of the law. The said view is accordingly overruled.”
– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Arjun Khotkar v. Kailash Gorantyal, [Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-20826 of 2017).