Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    In The Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka

    Uploaded by

    asadwcaf
    The appellant challenges the admissibility of electronic evidence provided by the respondent wife in court. The appellant argues that the evidence, a photograph taken from a third party's phone, requires an electronic evidence certificate to authenticate it as the original since it was transferred through multiple mediums. The Supreme Court has ruled that electronic evidence under the Evidence Act can only be proved according to the procedure under Section 65B, which deals with admissibility and requires a certificate to certify electronic records as secondary evidence. As the photograph was not the original and was transferred, an electronic certificate is necessary in this case to prove its authenticity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    In The Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka

    Uploaded by

    asadwcaf
    16 views2 pages
    The appellant challenges the admissibility of electronic evidence provided by the respondent wife in court. The appellant argues that the evidence, a photograph taken from a third party's phone, requires an electronic evidence certificate to authenticate it as the original since it was transferred through multiple mediums. The Supreme Court has ruled that electronic evidence under the Evidence Act can only be proved according to the procedure under Section 65B, which deals with admissibility and requires a certificate to certify electronic records as secondary evidence. As the photograph was not the original and was transferred, an electronic certificate is necessary in this case to prove its authenticity.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Theja Assingmnet

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The appellant challenges the admissibility of electronic evidence provided by the respondent wife in court. The appellant argues that the evidence, a photograph taken from a third party's phone, requires an electronic evidence certificate to authenticate it as the original since it was transferred through multiple mediums. The Supreme Court has ruled that electronic evidence under the Evidence Act can only be proved according to the procedure under Section 65B, which deals with admissibility and requires a certificate to certify electronic records as secondary evidence. As the photograph was not the original and was transferred, an electronic certificate is necessary in this case to prove its authenticity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    16 views2 pages

    In The Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka

    Uploaded by

    asadwcaf
    The appellant challenges the admissibility of electronic evidence provided by the respondent wife in court. The appellant argues that the evidence, a photograph taken from a third party's phone, requires an electronic evidence certificate to authenticate it as the original since it was transferred through multiple mediums. The Supreme Court has ruled that electronic evidence under the Evidence Act can only be proved according to the procedure under Section 65B, which deals with admissibility and requires a certificate to certify electronic records as secondary evidence. As the photograph was not the original and was transferred, an electronic certificate is necessary in this case to prove its authenticity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

    RITHIK

    (APPELLANT)

    V.

    PRERANA

    (RESPONDENT)

    MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


    Summary of Arguments

    1.Whether the electronic evidence provided by the respondent wife is admissible

    Arguments Advanced

    1.1 Whether the electronic evidence provided by the respondent wife is admissible

    It is submitted that the evidence provided by the respondents is inadmissible. The evidence
    presented by the respondents of the current case have presented a secondary evidence.

    The emergence of Information technology has made a revolutionary impact in social interactions
    as well as buisiness transactions. Taking note of this development the IT Act was incorporated
    and the evidence act too was amended to adjust to this development to ease the access to
    evidences. However electronic evidences being very succeptible to being mismanaged or even
    manipulated, the act mandated the requirement of the producing a certificate for authenticating
    the veracity of the evidence provided.

    The Supreme Court in case of Anvar P.V vs. P.K Basheer overruling an earlier decision opined
    that :
    " Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of
    Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
    Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of
    these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer"

    The photograhic evidence in question in this case must go through all the safeguards

    1.1 Whether there is a requirement for an electronic certificate

    It is contended that the photograph which forms the crux of the respondent's argument has been
    taken from a third party's phone and has thus makes it mandatory for the requirement of a
    electronic evidence certificate as it forms

    The requirement of an electronic certificate is essentially necessary in the current case as the sole
    evidence which forms the crux of the respondents contention has been transferred multiple times
    through different mediums.

    The Supreme Court in it's judgement in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash
    Kushanrao Gorantyal (the certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original
    document itself is produced. If the owner proves a laptop, computer, computer tablet or a
    mobile phone owned or operated by him, bringing the same in the witness-box, on which
    the original information is first stored, the requirement of the statement or the certificate
    u/s 65B(4) is unnecessary.)

    You might also like