JUDGMENT ( 1. ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 12-10-2010 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class II, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 66-A/2009, whereby the evidence adduced by the petitioner in shape of photographs and CD was rejected on the objection of the respondent that the documents submitted are inadmissible in evidence, present petition has been filed. ( 2. ) Short facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for eviction under Section 12 (1) (a), (c) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred as 'Act') alleging that petitioner is tenant of the respondent and the respondent is entitled for a decree of eviction. The suit was contested by the petitioner on various grounds including on the ground that respondent is having number of alternative accommodations from where alleged requirement can be fulfilled. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties learned Court below framed the issues and fix the case for evidence. At the stage of cross- examination of the respondent, some photographs and CD (Compact Disk) were submitted by the petitioner, which was objected by the respondent on the ground that documents and the CD submitted by the petitioner is inadmissible in evidence. Objections were upheld and documents were held inadmissible in evidence against which the present petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order passed by learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be quashed. Learned Counsel submits that certain photographs were filed by the petitioner before the Court below to demonstrate that respondent is having alternative accommodation, which is being leted out by the respondent and is in possession of the tenants. It is submitted that by the CD also petitioner wanted to project the same. It is submitted that there was no justification on the part of the learned Court below in rejecting additional evidence adduced by the petitioner on the ground that it is in violation of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of G. Shyamala Ranjini Vs. It is submitted that there was no justification on the part of the learned Court below in rejecting additional evidence adduced by the petitioner on the ground that it is in violation of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of G. Shyamala Ranjini Vs. M.S. Tamizhnathan, reported in AIR 2008 (NOC) 476 (Mad.), wherein Madras High Court has held that in matrimonial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, wife alleged to have abused and threatened husband on his cell phone, which was recorded in it and the audio CD sought to be exhibited and the objection raised by the wife was audio CD is fabricated one and inadmissible, it was held that audio CD marked as an exhibit with condition that when CD is played opportunity will be given to the wife for cross-examination. Learned Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case impugned order, whereby evidence adduced by the petitioner was held inadmissible in evidence, be set aside. ( 3. ) Shri P.C. Vaya, learned Counsel for respondent, submits that photographs, which are filed by the petitioner arc from different-different studios. Learned Counsel submits that keeping in view the provisions of Section 65-B of Evidence Act, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. ( 4. ) Section 65-B has been inserted in the Evidence Act by Act No. 21 of 2000 and has come in force w.e.f. 17-10-2000, which deals with admissibility of electronic records. As per sub-section (1) of Section 65-B any information contained in electronic record, which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in that section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. Sub-section (2) of Section 65-B of the Act lays down the conditions, which has been referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of Computer output shall be following :- "(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contains; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities." As per sub-section (4) of Section 65-B of the Act any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this Section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,- - (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involving in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of a relevant device or the management of the relevant activities shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. ( 5. ) In the matter of Jagdish Singh Vs. ( 5. ) In the matter of Jagdish Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2006) 11 SCC 1 , wherein the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Haryana disqualified a member of defection. When hearing the matter, the Supreme Court considered the appreciation of digital evidence in the form of interview transcripts from the Zee News, the Aaj Tak and the Haryana News of Punjab Today Television channels and observed the extent of relevance of the digital materials. The petitioners, who were independent MLAs, filed their replies to the complaint that they had joined the Congress Party and hence had incurred disqualification. They were asked by the Speaker to watch the video recording of their interviews on various television channels in which the petitioners had themselves admitted to having joint the Congress Party and point out doctoring thereof, if any. The said video recordings showed the petitioners in the company of Senior Congress Party functionaries and leaders. During the course of the interviews by the television channels, the petitioners admitted and acknowledged the fact that they had joined the Congress Party. Furthermore, the petitioners were also seen participating in the meeting of the Congress legislature Party held on 16-6-2004 in the premises of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. The interviews had been duly certified by both the television channels that telecast them as regards their contents as well as having been recorded on 14-6-2004 at New Delhi. It had also been certified by both the television channels through their original letters duly signed by their authorised signatures that the original CDs were handed over to one Ashwani Kumar who was authorised by the complainant in this regard. Ashwani Kumar's affidavit was also on the record wherein he stated that he had handed over the original CDs to the petitioners. The petitioners, despite the grant of opportunity declined to watch the recorded interview. IN the facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is one thing to watch the interviews, point out in that manner the recording was not genuine, but instead of availing of that opportunity, the petitioners preferred to adopt the course of vague denial. Under these circumstances, the Speaker concluded that "there is no room for doubting the authenticity and accuracy of the electronic evidence produced by the complainant". Having failed to point out any doctoring, etc. Under these circumstances, the Speaker concluded that "there is no room for doubting the authenticity and accuracy of the electronic evidence produced by the complainant". Having failed to point out any doctoring, etc. or that the recording was not genuine, on the facts of the present case the petitioners cannot be heard to say that non-grant of opportunity to cross-examine Ashwani Kumar and to adduce evidence has resulted in violation of rules of natural justice on having simply denied that they had not joined the Congress Party. 1 lad they availed of the opportunity and pointed out how the recording was not correct and it was doctored and then had not been permitted to lead evidence, the argument that there had been violation of principles of the natural justice may have carried considerable weight. The petitioners cannot be permitted to sit on the fence take vague pleas and make general denials in the proceedings before the Tribunal of the nature under consideration. ( 6. ) In the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande. 2008 Cri.LJ 953, the question arose before the Gujarat High Court regarding admissibility of document relating to electronic record. IN this case, the accused was tried for the offence of kidnapping. Number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution. While cross-examining the victim sought permission by defence to put forward CD containing interview of victim on local TV channel and for watching the same on CD player. Permission was granted by the Trial Court. IN the circumstances, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that the Trial Court fail to consider the fact that CD has not been prepared and preserved safely by independent authority like police, but same has been produced by accused persons. Permission was granted by the Trial Court. IN the circumstances, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that the Trial Court fail to consider the fact that CD has not been prepared and preserved safely by independent authority like police, but same has been produced by accused persons. IN the matter Lalji Bansanarayan Choubey vs. Jiyalal Chavan, AIR 2009 (NOC) 1230 (Bom.), wherein accused was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the case of the accused was that cheque was issued towards payment of purchase price of plots owned by complainant and later on he came to know that complainant was not owner of those plots he did not arrange for payment of amount under cheque due to frustration of agreement of sale and the accused tried to produce tape recorded conversation between himself and complainant, Hon'ble Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held that tape recorded was neither immediately produced in Court nor was scaled as per requirement of law and also failure to produce transcription of tape recorded conversation. It was also held that accused failed to rebut presumption regarding legally enforceable debt liable to be convicted. Thus, from the aforesaid position of law, it is evident that after insertion of special provisions as the evidence relating to electronic record, the electronic record is admissible in evidence, but for that purpose the person who is producing the evidence has to satisfy the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and is also required to produce a certificate as enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Since the provisions of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act were not complied with by the petitioner, therefore, learned Court below committed no error in rejecting the evidence produced by the petitioner. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.