CMR UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

SUBJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE

TOPIC: MOOT COURT PROBLEM

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF.ARUNA L

SUMITTED BY:

ARUNDHATHI.K. S

18DBLBT005

LLB, 3YEARS, 5TH SEM

1
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES

OF

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

APPELLANT…. RITHIK

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

RESPONDENT……. PRERANA

2
 CASES REFERRED

1. Anvar P.V vs. P.K. Basheer And Others, AIR 2014 10 SC 473
2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-
20826 of 2017

ISSUES RAISED

Issue 1: WHETHER PHOTOGRAPH IS INADMISSABLE AS EVIDENCE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: WHETHER PHOTOGRAPH IS INADMISSABLE AS EVIDENCE

Section 65-B sub-section states that any information contained in an electronic record which
is printed or is stored by computer will be deemed to be a document. An electronic record
shall be admissible as evidence in any proceeding without any further proof, provided the
conditions mentioned in section 65-B 

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the supreme court in the case of
Anvar P.V v. P.K. Basheer,1 the supreme court held that, “ Secondary data found in CD’s,
DVD’s, and the pendrive are not admissible in the court proceedings without a proper
authentic certificate according to section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As per
section 65B any secondary evidence without any certificate attached to it of any electronic
record, is inadmissible.

1
AIR 2014 10 SC 473.

3
The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate under Section 65B (4) is
unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a
laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box
and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is
owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the “computer” happens to be a part of a
“computer system” or “computer network” and it becomes impossible to physically bring
such system or network to the Court, then the only means of providing information contained
in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the
requisite certificate under Section 65B(4).

In instant case the pictures of Rithik and Ananya was clicked by Ajay through his mobile
phone and this picture was transferred to laptop of Deva and then it was sent to Prerana’s
sister Prarthana in which as evidence there should have been produced Ajay mobile phone as
primary evidence but then secondary evidence was produced and it was without any
certificate. In which in evidence perspective if secondary evidence is produced there should
be provided by a certificate as per section 65B (4) of Indian evidence Act

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the case Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal,2 that the Section 65B begins with a non-obstante
clause, explicitly making clear the intent of the legislation that “when it comes to information
contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of
Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf – Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant
for this purpose.” And this case the court held there should be mandatory certificate with the
electronic records such as CD’S, DVD and photograph which is secondary evidence.

It is submitted that, in the instant case, no certificate was provided along with the photograph
of Rithik and Ananya which was taken from Ajay’s phone so it can be said that photograph
which is taken is inadmissible.

It is submitted that, under section 65B, any information contained in an electronic record
which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied or magnetic media produced by a
computer shall be deemed to be also a document. And also, in section 65B(4)(a) it says that
identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which
it was produced by a computer and also evidence which is produced should be provided to
the court with the certificate.
2
Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-20826 of 2017

4
Therefore, it is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, the photograph which
is produced by the respondent is inadmissible because it was not supported with any
certificate as per section 65B (4).

PRAYER

In the light of the issue raised, arguments, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble
Court that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that,

1.The Photograph Is Inadmissible as Evidence

Or pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.
For this act of kindness, the Counsel for the Appellant shall duty bound forever pray.

All of which is most humbly submitted.

Counsel for Appellant

Sd/-