JUDGMENT : By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant - one of the defence witnesses has prayed for the following reliefs : "A. To allow this petition; B. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing that the documentary evidence produced at Sr.Nos.1 to 9 with the List at Exh.877 in Sessions Case No.141 of 2014 by the petitioner i.e. Defence Witness No.5 Sejal B. Talloli, pending before the Ld. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat be exhibited. C. To quash and set aside Exhibit 883 order in Sessions Case No.141 of 2014 pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. D. To pass such other and further order/s as deemed fit, just and proper by this Hon'ble Court." The case put up by the applicant, in her own words as pleaded in her application, is as under : 3.1 That an FIR being CR No.I-31 of 2013 dated 6.10.2013 came to be registered before Jahangirpura Police Station, Surat, for the offences under Sections 376, 377, 354, 357, 342, 346, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2), 508, 212, 153, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code 1860. 3.2 That after the completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. That the offence being sessions triable, the case was committed to Ld. 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat and which came to be registered as Sessions Case No.141 of 2014. 3.3 That thereafter present petitioner on 5.12.2017 deposed in her examination in chief before the learned court below about the documentary evidence which are at Exhibit 877/9 (being Audio Recorder cum Pendrive), 877/4 (being Compact Disc i.e. CD), and 877/5 (being Typed Transcript of CD). That the ld. Judge was pleased to observe that in absence of the certificate under Section 65B of the IEA, the abovementioned evidence could not be exhibited. 3.4 Thereafter the examination in chief was adjourned to 6.12.2017 due to completion of court hours. That on 6.12.2017 during the course of examination in chief, the said petitioner moved another application along with certificate u/s 65B of IEA being Exh.883 before the Ld. 3.4 Thereafter the examination in chief was adjourned to 6.12.2017 due to completion of court hours. That on 6.12.2017 during the course of examination in chief, the said petitioner moved another application along with certificate u/s 65B of IEA being Exh.883 before the Ld. Judge and prayed before the Hon'ble Court that the said documents produced at Sr.No.1 to 9 along with the list at exhibit 877 are touching the root cause of the case and are therefore required to be exhibited in order to do substantial justice to the accused and not deprive the accused of their right to a fair trial. 3.5 That the Ld. Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the application under Exh.883 vide the impugned order dated 6.12.2017. Thus, it appears that the trial Court, by its impugned order, declined to admit the Compact Disc (CD) in evidence and give a tentative exhibit as, according to the trial Court, the same is in the form of secondary evidence, and in the absence of primary evidence, the same would not be admissible. Let me first look into the application filed by the applicant herein Exh.883 in the Sessions Case No.141 of 2014. The application reads as under : "IN THE COURT OF THE 2nd ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SURAT SESSIONS CASE NO.141/2014 COMPLAINANT : THE STATE OF GUJARAT VERSUS ACCUSED : NARAYAN SAI AND ORS. It is humbly submitted on behalf of D.W. No.5 that : 1. That my examination in chief is in progress. Yesterday, I deposed about the documentary evidences which are at exh.877/9, 877/4 and 877/5 without a certificate U/s. 65-B of the Evidence Act. 2. That, although I am an educated lady aware of technical issues, I am not aware about provisions of law. At mark 877/9 in the list under mark 877, I produced a device which being an Audio Recorder cum pen drive, which seems like an ordinary pen drive. Since, I wanted to trace conspirators against Asharam Bapu, Narayan Sai and their Ashrams along with my husband, I had to use the said device in several Sting Operations. 3. At mark 877/9 in the list under mark 877, I produced a device which being an Audio Recorder cum pen drive, which seems like an ordinary pen drive. Since, I wanted to trace conspirators against Asharam Bapu, Narayan Sai and their Ashrams along with my husband, I had to use the said device in several Sting Operations. 3. Yesterday I had submitted my depositions on oath and also deposed about the documents along-with exh.877/9, 877/4 and 877/5 and after hearing which, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that in absence of the certificate U/s. 65 B of the Evidence Act, the said documents cannot not be exhibited. 4. That, my examination in chief is still under progress and I am still in the witness box to give my examination in chief. Today, along with the application and list, I hereby produce the certificate U/s. 65 B of the Evidence Act and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider taking on record those documents and be pleased to exhibit the documents as stated from sr. no. 1 to 9 in the documents list at exh.877. 5. That, as I am not aware about the provisions of law, in order to prove the said incidents occurred, this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice may be pleased to give opportunity to me to prove the documents as stated above. 6. That, the provisions of laws are hand-made and they cannot create hindrance in the administration of justice. Natural justice demands to give full opportunity to the accused, victim and also the witness to place his/her evidence on record. 7. That, facts remain facts and the documents are already placed on record. Therefore, now only the questions in hurdle is that, in absence of certificate U/s. 65-B of the Evidence Act the documents were not exhibited. 8. That, under these circumstances, it is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the said documents produced at sr. 1 to 9 along with the list at exh. 877 are touching the root of the case and the accused are booked by the conspirators with the help of politicians and police officers. Therefore, to do the substantial justice, it is my humble submission to this Hon'ble Court to render substantial justice to the parties and also to my depositions as a Defense Witness. 877 are touching the root of the case and the accused are booked by the conspirators with the help of politicians and police officers. Therefore, to do the substantial justice, it is my humble submission to this Hon'ble Court to render substantial justice to the parties and also to my depositions as a Defense Witness. With respect to the Certificate U/s. 65-B of the Evidence Act which is produced along with the separate list, I may be permitted to produce the said certificate and the same may be taken on record in the interest of justice and the documents produced at exh. 877 containing sr. nos. 1 to 9 be exhibited." The learned Public Prosecutor put an endorsement raising his objections with regard to the admissibility of the document in question. The endorsement reads as under : "After the Hon'ble Court rejected the prayer to exhibit the documents adduced and when there is non-existence of the original documents on the date on which when this certificate was produced, even though an objection has been raised illegally and with malafide intention against the production of this certificate. As the witness has stated in deposition that it is not possible to produce the original document, in such circumstances just because a certificate under Section 65B is produced, the document does not become admissible." Let me now look into the certificate produced and placed on record under Section 65B of the Evidence Act by the applicant : "Yesterday on 5.12.2017 I had submitted a list of documents at mark 877, along with the said list, I produced in all 9 documentary evidences. At mark 877/9, I produced a device which being an Audio Recorder cum pen drive, which seems like an ordinary pen drive. Since, I wanted to trace out the conspirators against Asharam Bapu, Narayan sai and their Ashrams along with my husband, I had to use the said device in several Sting Operations. That, I personally transferred the data from the said Audio Recorder cum Pen Drive to my laptop and from my laptop, I transferred the said Sting Operation data containing the conversation of Satish Wadhwani, myself and my husband to the CD. I conducted this procedure on my own and say and declare that the data transferred to the CD is at mark 877/4. I conducted this procedure on my own and say and declare that the data transferred to the CD is at mark 877/4. Further, at mark 877/5 is the typed transcript which is true and correct as per data stored in the aforesaid Audio Recorder cum Pen Drive containing Sting Operation at mark 877/9 is the true and correct data. That, I also had my mobile phone in 2013 and 2014. The number of mobile phone is 8980309178 and in the said phone there was also a feature for recording calls. In the said phone I also recorded the conversation between Vasu and Satish Wadhwani on 25.12.2013. I transferred the data from the said mobile phone to my laptop and thereafter, I personally prepared audio CD of the said conversation which I have produced along with list at sr. no. 2 (877/2) and the ’transcript of the said audio is at sr. no. 3 (877/3). From the said mobile phone, I also recorded the talk between Vasu and Satish Wadhwani on 10.12.2014 and from the mobile phone I transferred the data to my laptop and from that laptop to CD which is at sr. no. 6 (877/6). The document at Sr. No. 7 (877/7) is the true and correct typed transcript of the CD which is at sr. no. 6 (877/6). Somewhere from Bangalore on 21.9.2015 I and my husband were arrested and we were in judicial custody for a long time in Ahmedabad and Surat Jail and nobody was there to look out for our house as well as our equipments. When we were released on bail, the said mobile phone mentioned previously was not traceable. Thus the said mobile phone is now not available but, I say that the CD at sr. no. 2 (877/2) and sr. no. 6 (877/6) are true and correct data. We were also having a spy watch for the purpose of conducting sting operation. We also conducted sting operation from our spy watch and recorded in detail everything transpired during the sting operation. I have also produced the said watch at sr. no. 8 (877/8) at pg. no. 32 but the same is not in a working condition because its proper care could not be taken since we were in judicial custody after the sting operation. The said watch is on record of this Hon’ble court at sr. no. I have also produced the said watch at sr. no. 8 (877/8) at pg. no. 32 but the same is not in a working condition because its proper care could not be taken since we were in judicial custody after the sting operation. The said watch is on record of this Hon’ble court at sr. no. 8 (877/8) and I am also aware about the facts of the sting operation. Furthermore, myself & Vasu had conducted sting operation by recording in the above mentioned Spy Watch, which is at record at exhibit 877/8 of a meeting with Satish Vadhwani, Sheikh Reporter of India News, Complainant and his husband at Rajpurohit Hotel on 5.1.2014. I had transferred the Video recording which was recorded in the Spy Watch to my laptop and then prepared CD. I had also prepared the transcript of the said video recording. I had handed over this video recording and transcript to Nishantbhai at Ahmedabad, Motera Ashram. I am being informed that the said CD and transcript are produced in this Hon’ble Court. The said CD is on the record of the Hon’ble court at Exhibit 425/1 and the transcript of the recording at Exhibit no.425/2/1 to 425/2/21. During the meeting at Rajpurohit Hotel, Satish Wadhwani had talked with Raju Chandak by Vasu’s phone. The said talk was also recorded in Vasu’s phone, which I had transferred into my laptop and then prepared Cd. I had also prepared the transcript of the said recording. I had handed over this video recording and transcript to Nishantbhai at Ahmedabad, Motera Ashram. I am being informed that the said CD and transcript are produced in this Hon’ble Court. The said CD is on the record of the Hon’ble court at Exhibit 425/3 and the transcript of the recording at Exhibit no.425/4/1 to 425/4/3. Myself and Vasu had visited the House of Complainant and met her and her husband. We had also recorded the said meeting in the Spy Watch. I had transferred the said recording in my laptop and then prepared the CD. Then after I had also prepared the transcript of the said recording. I had handed over this video recording and transcript to Nishantbhai at Ahmedabad, Motera Ashram. I am being informed that the said CD and transcript are produced in this Hon’ble Court. I had transferred the said recording in my laptop and then prepared the CD. Then after I had also prepared the transcript of the said recording. I had handed over this video recording and transcript to Nishantbhai at Ahmedabad, Motera Ashram. I am being informed that the said CD and transcript are produced in this Hon’ble Court. The said CD is on the record of the Hon’ble court at Exhibit 425/8 and the transcript of the recording at Exhibit no.425/9/1 to 425/9/11. I say and declare that what was in the device at mark 877/9 is stored in the CD which is at exhibit 877/4, and exhibit 877/5 is true and correct type transcript of the same. I say and declare that what was in the device at mark 877/8 is stored in the CD which is at exhibit 425/1 and 425/8 and exhibit 425/4/1 to 425/4/3 and 425/9/1 to 425/9/11 is true and correct type transcript of the same. I say and declare the audio recording which was done in the phone is in the CD at exhibit no.877/2, 877/6 and 425/3 and the transcripts of the same at exhibit no.877/3, 877/7 and 425/4/1 to 425/4/3 is true and correct transcript of the same." The last part of the impugned order is important, which reads as under : "It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant/Defence Witness that she is ignorant of law; she was not legally aware of producing such certificate at the relevant time; the duty of the court is to render justice keeping in mind the principles of natural justice. Therefore, while submitting the certificate u/s 65(B), the applicant has submitted to admit certificate, C.D. and its script in evidence and give them exhibit number. Against the aforesaid submission, learned Spl.P.P. states that on perusal of certificate and details of the application and taking into account the deposition of the witness, the witness has admitted that device of mark 877/9 was used to record the alleged recording and original recording contained in C.D. of mark 877/4 is not available and it is destroyed. No such details emerged on the record as to under whose custody the laptop was, in which the data was allegedly transferred, when she and her husband were in the police custody and judicial custody in connection with the other offence. No such details emerged on the record as to under whose custody the laptop was, in which the data was allegedly transferred, when she and her husband were in the police custody and judicial custody in connection with the other offence. Though the original data is destroyed, and when certificate is issued in respect of copy made therefrom, demand has been made to produce document to fill up lacuna, which cannot be granted. On consideration of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, details of the application and certificate of mark 883/1 produced with application, it is stated in para 3 of certificate of mark 883/1 that applicant/Defence Witness transferred data in the laptop and presently, data is not available in the device, which was used for the same. Moreover, it is not declared in the certificate of mark 883/1 as to under whose control the said laptop was when she and her husband were lodged in the jail; and when demand of giving exhibit number has been rejected passing order in this regard, present application is not liable to be granted in view of provisions of section 65(B). Therefore, the same is rejected." Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Court below, the applicant is here before this Court with this application, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Bhadrish Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, vehemently submitted that the Court below committed a serious error in passing the impugned order. The learned counsel submitted that Section 65B of the Evidence Act begins with a non-obstante clause and gives primacy and overriding effect to the said provision. The first part stipulates that any information contained in the electronic record in the form of paper print output or optical or magnetic media output, i.e. the electronic record copied, stored or recorded on an optical or magnetic media from another source, shall be deemed to be a document. The first part, therefore, deals with the paper printout or optical or magnetic media on which the electronic record has been copied, stored or recorded as distinct from the original media on which the data or information is created, or recorded, stored or copied. Media and paper print outs are tangible articles. Paper print outs can be seen and read. The first part, therefore, deals with the paper printout or optical or magnetic media on which the electronic record has been copied, stored or recorded as distinct from the original media on which the data or information is created, or recorded, stored or copied. Media and paper print outs are tangible articles. Paper print outs can be seen and read. Media can also be seen and read, when viewed with an appropriate equipment and paper printouts taken. Noticeably and pertinently, the paper printout output or the optical or magnetic media output, on satisfaction of the conditions stipulated in Section 65B is treated as a document by itself. The conditions would relate to the information and the computer from which the printout on paper or optical or magnetic media has been produced by copying, recording or storing the files. The following part, states that when the conditions mentioned in the section in relation to (a) information (b) computers are satisfied, the document i.e. the printed paper or the optical or magnetic media on which the files have been copied, stored and recorded, shall be admissible in evidence, without further proof or production of the original. In such circumstances, production of the original computer or equipment from which the paper print out or media was produced by copying, recording or storing the files is not required to be produced. Once the requirements are satisfied, the printed document or the optical or magnetic media would be evidence of the contents as to what was stored in the computer from which the print out, or media was created by way of copying, recording or storing files. The last part therefore deals with the effect, when the requirements stated in Section 65B are satisfied. He further submitted that the proof of electronic record is a special proviso introduced by the Information Technology Act amending the various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act read with Sections 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special proviso on evidence relating to the electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is, a complete Code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act has to yield. That is, a complete Code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act has to yield. The learned counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on a 3-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014)10 SCC 473 , and a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kundan Singh v. The State (Criminal Appeal No.711 of 2014, decided on 24th November 2015). In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prays that there being merit in this application, the same be allowed, the impugned order be quashed and the application Exh.883 be allowed. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Mitesh Amin, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Mr. Amin submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the Court below in rejecting the application Exh.883. He submitted that adducing of the secondary evidence presupposes existence of the primary evidence. In the absence of the primary evidence, the Court below was justified in not taking the C.D. into consideration. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Amin, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that there being no merit in this application, the same be rejected. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the Court below committed any error in passing the impugned order. Let me first consider the general law so far as adducing of primary evidence and secondary evidence is concerned. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kalia v. State of M.P., (2013)10 SCC 758 , has explained in details regarding the permissibility to adduce secondary evidence relating to a document. I may quote the observations made by the Supreme Court, in paragraph nos. 13 and 14, reads as under:- "13. Section 65(c) of the Act 1872 provides that secondary evidence can be adduced relating to a document when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason, not arising from his own default, or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. 13 and 14, reads as under:- "13. Section 65(c) of the Act 1872 provides that secondary evidence can be adduced relating to a document when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason, not arising from his own default, or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. The court is obliged to examine the probative value of documents produced in court or their contents and decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence. (Vide: H. Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam, AIR 2011 SC 1492 ; and Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal & Anr. v. M.S.S. Food Products, (2012) 2 SCC 196 ). However, the secondary evidence of an ordinary document is admissible only and only when the party desirous of admitting it has proved before the court that it was not in his possession or control of it and further, that he has done what could be done to procure the production of it. Thus, the party has to account for the non-production in one of the ways indicated in the section. The party further has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. When the party gives in evidence a certified copy/secondary evidence without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, the opposite party must raise an objection at the time of admission. In case, an objection is not raised at that point of time, it is precluded from being raised at a belated stage. Further, mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Nor, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law. (Vide: The Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1457 ; Marwari Khumhar & Ors. v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2629 ; R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 4548 ; Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082 ; and Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Rampal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 ). 14. v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2629 ; R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 4548 ; Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082 ; and Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Rampal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 ). 14. In M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu & Anr., (2010) 9 SCC 712 , this Court considered this aspect in detail and held as under: “We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court. It is true that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in the exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible. However, if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the contents or in another form. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. It should be emphasised that the exceptions to the rule requiring primary evidence are designed to provide relief in a case where a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party. A similar view has been re-iterated in J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, AIR 2007 SC 1721 ." The Supreme Court, in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and another, (2003)8 SCC 752 , made the following observations in paragraph no.20:- "The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on The Roman Catholic Mission Vs. The State of Madras & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1457 in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to herein above, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court." The Supreme Court, in the case of Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3467 , observed in paragraph no.26 as under:- "26.Contention of Mr. Nariman that the Xerox copies of the deeds of sale produced by the parties were not admissible in evidence in terms of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act is stated to be rejected. The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act postulate that secondary evidence can be led by the parties in the event primary evidence is not available. In a case of this nature, however, the claimant-respondents may be aware of the transactions. Indisputably, they did not raise any objection as regard admissibility of the said deeds of sale. The xerox copy of the deeds of sale were marked exhibits without any objection having been taken by the Respondents herein. Such an objection cannot, therefore, be taken for the first time before this Court. [See R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752 and Dayamathi Bai (Smt.) v. K.M. Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107 ]. Such an objection cannot, therefore, be taken for the first time before this Court. [See R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752 and Dayamathi Bai (Smt.) v. K.M. Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107 ]. What would be their evidentiary value may ultimately fall for consideration by the Court but the said deeds of sale cannot be rejected only on the ground that only Xerox copies thereof had been brought on records. The onus to prove the market value as obtaining on the date of notification was on the claimants. It was for them to adduce evidence to prove their claims by bringing sufficient and cogent materials on record so as to enable the court to determine the market value of the acquired land as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the claimants themselves filed Xerox copies of the deeds of sale or failed to examine any witness to prove the relevant factors for determining the market value of the land acquired with reference to the said sale instances, they cannot now be permitted to resile therefrom and contend that the said documents should be totally ignored." In the case of Sunil Mehta and another v. State of Gujarat, (2013)9 SCC 209 , wherein the Court made the following observations in paragraph nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17:- "12. Sections 244 to 246 leave no manner of doubt that once the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate the prosecution has to be heard and all such evidence as is brought in support of its case recorded. The power to discharge is also under Section 245 exercisable only upon taking all of the evidence that is referred to in Section 244, so also the power to frame charges in terms of Section 246 has to be exercised on the basis of the evidence recorded under Section 244. The expression when such evidence has been taken appearing in Section 246 is significant and refers to the evidence that the prosecution is required to produce in terms of Section 244(1) of the Code. The expression when such evidence has been taken appearing in Section 246 is significant and refers to the evidence that the prosecution is required to produce in terms of Section 244(1) of the Code. There is nothing either in the provisions of Sections 244, 245 and 246 or any other provision of the Code for that matter to even remotely suggest that evidence which the Magistrate may have recorded at the stage of taking of cognizance and issuing of process against the accused under Chapter XV tantamounts to evidence that can be used by the Magistrate for purposes of framing of charges against the accused persons under Section 246 thereof without the same being produced under Section 244 of the Code. The scheme of the two Chapters is totally different. While Chapter XV deals with the filing of complaints, examination of the complainant and the witnesses and taking of cognizance on the basis thereof with or without investigation and inquiry, Chapter XIX Part B deals with trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. The trial of an accused under Chapter XIX and the evidence relevant to the same has no nexus proximate or otherwise with the evidence adduced at the initial stage where the Magistrate records depositions and examines the evidence for purposes of deciding whether a case for proceeding further has been made out. All that may be said is that evidence that was adduced before a Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning of the accused may often be the same as is adduced before the Court once the accused appears pursuant to the summons. There is, however, a qualitative difference between the approach that the Court adopts and the evidence adduced at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused and that recorded at the trial. The difference lies in the fact that while the former is a process that is conducted in the absence of the accused, the latter is undertaken in his presence with an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution. 13. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant strenuously argued that Section 244 does not envisage, leave alone provide for in specific terms, cross-examination of witnesses produced by the prosecution by the accused. 13. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant strenuously argued that Section 244 does not envisage, leave alone provide for in specific terms, cross-examination of witnesses produced by the prosecution by the accused. He submitted that since the provision of Section 244 did not recognise any such right of an accused before framing of charges, it did not make any difference whether the Court was evaluating evidence adduced at the stage of cognizance and summoning of the accused or that adduced after he had appeared before the Magistrate under Section 244. He particularly drew our attention to sub-section (4) to Section 246 which requires the Magistrate to ask the accused whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and if so, which of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken. It was contended by Mr. Lalit that the provision of sub-section (4) to Section 246 provides for cross- examination by the accused only after charges have been framed and not before. 14. There is, in our opinion, no merit in that contention which needs to be noticed only to be rejected. We say so for reasons more than one. In the first place, the expression Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution appearing in Section 244 refers to evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 3 reads as under: "3. Interpretation clause - In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context: Evidence.- Evidence means and includes 1. all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence; 2. all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence." 15. We may also refer to Chapter X of the Evidence Act which deals with examination of witnesses. Section 137 appearing in that Chapter defines the expressions examination-in-chief, cross and re-examination while Section 138 stipulates the order of examinations and reads as under: 138. Order of examinations.- Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. Section 137 appearing in that Chapter defines the expressions examination-in-chief, cross and re-examination while Section 138 stipulates the order of examinations and reads as under: 138. Order of examinations.- Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination.- The reexamination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, ntroduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter." 16. It is trite that evidence within the meaning of the Evidence Act and so also within the meaning of Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. is what is recorded in the manner stipulated under Section 138 in the case of oral evidence. Documentary evidence would similarly be evidence only if the documents are proved in the manner recognised and provided for under the Evidence Act unless of course a statutory provision makes the document admissible as evidence without any formal proof thereof. 17. Suffice it to say that evidence referred to in Sections 244, 245 and 246 must, on a plain reading of the said provisions and the provisions of the Evidence Act, be admissible only if the same is produced and, in the case of documents, proved in accordance with the procedure established under the Evidence Act which includes the rights of the parties against whom this evidence is produced to cross-examine the witnesses concerned. The Supreme Court, in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat reported in 2001(2) G.L.H. 545 has dealt with the issue in hand at length. The observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraphs nos.12 to 16 are as under:- "12. As pointed out earlier, on different occasions the trial Judge has chosen to decide question of admissibility of documents or other items of evidence, as and when objections thereto were raised and then detailed Orders were passed either upholding or overruling such objections. The worse part is that after passing the orders the trial Court waited for days and weeks for the concerned parties to go before the higher Courts for the purpose of challenging such interlocutory orders. 13. The worse part is that after passing the orders the trial Court waited for days and weeks for the concerned parties to go before the higher Courts for the purpose of challenging such interlocutory orders. 13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing Order on such objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial Court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or revisional Court, when the same question is re-canvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate Court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial Court. In such a situation the higher Court may have to send the case back to the trial Court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or re-moulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed. 15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial Court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the Court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior Court, when the same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial Court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial Court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial Court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses. 16. We, therefore, make the above as a procedure to be followed by the trial Courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence. What is discernible from the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above is that the objection as to the admissibility of secondary evidence relating to a document can be raised even after the document has been marked as an exhibit or even in revision if the document sought to be proved is itself inadmissible. If the objection is directed not against the admissibility of the document but against the mode of proof thereof on the ground of irregularity or insufficiency etc. such objection is not entertainable if the document has been exhibited without any objection from the other side. The objection of the applicant herein is only as to the mode of proof of the said document but not to the admissibility of the said document. such objection is not entertainable if the document has been exhibited without any objection from the other side. The objection of the applicant herein is only as to the mode of proof of the said document but not to the admissibility of the said document. The principle of law as explained by the Supreme Court in the Case of Sunil Mehta (supra) is that the evidence within the meaning of Section 244 Cr.P.C. is what is recorded in the manner stipulated under Section 138 of the Evidence Act in the case of oral evidence and the documentary evidence would similarly be evidence only if the documents are proved in the manner recognized and provided for under the Evidence Act. In short, the evidence referred to in Sections 244, 245 and 246 Cr.P.C. must be admissible only if the same is produced and, in the case of documents, proved in accordance with the procedure established under the Evidence Act. Any document filed by either party passes through three stages before it is held proved or disproved. They are as follows : First stage: when the documents are filed by either party in the Court; these documents though on file, do not become part of the judicial record; Second Stage: When the documents are tendered or produced in evidence by a party and the Court admits the documents in evidence. A document admitted in evidence becomes a part of the judicial record of the case and constitutes evidence; Third Stage: the documents which are held proved not proved or disproved when the Court is called upon to apply its judicial mind by reference to Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. When the Court is called upon to examine the admissibility of a document it concentrates only on the document. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved, disproved or not proved the Court would look not at the document alone or only at the statement of the witness standing in the box; it would take into consideration the probabilities of the case as emerging from the whole record. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved, disproved or not proved the Court would look not at the document alone or only at the statement of the witness standing in the box; it would take into consideration the probabilities of the case as emerging from the whole record. It could not have been intendment of any law, rule or practice direction to expect the Court applying its judicial mind to the entire record of the case, each time a document was placed before it for being exhibited and form an opinion if it was proved before marking it as an exhibit. The marking of a document as an exhibit, be it in any manner whatsoever either by use of alphabets or by use of numbers, is only for the purpose of identification. While reading the record the parties and the Court should be able to know which was the document before the witness while deposing. Absence of putting an endorsement for the purpose of identification no sooner a document is placed before a witness would cause serious confusion as one would be left simply guessing or wondering which was the document to which the witness was referring to while deposing. Endorsement of an exhibit number on a document has no relation with its proof. Neither the marking of an exhibit number can be postponed till the document has been held proved; nor the document can be held to have been proved merely because it has been marked as an exhibit. I may also quote with profit a decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Gaurang Mathurbhai Leava reported in 1999 (2) G.L.H. 564 . The observations made in paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are as under:- "5. When the court finds that a particular document tendered in evidence by the witness is duly proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act or the provisions of other Statutes applicable, the Court may exhibit the same so that the same can be considered while disposing of the matter finally. About the meaning of the word "exhibit", a question arose before the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rakhaldas Pramanick v. Sm. About the meaning of the word "exhibit", a question arose before the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rakhaldas Pramanick v. Sm. Shantilata Ghose and others, AIR 1956 Cal 619 wherein it is made clear that "Exhibit" means a document exhibited for the purpose of being taken into consideration in deciding some question or other in respect of the proceeding in which it is filed. Let me therefore make it clear that the document when it is exhibited, the Court, while exhibiting the same does not finally decide the rights of the parties, or form any opinion, or express any opinion on the document or on the point that arises for consideration. In short, no legal complexion is given to the issues that arise for consideration. After the hearing is over, while finally adjudicating, the Court is free to discard a particular document holding that it was not duly proved or holding that the document was partly proved namely, execution alone thereof was proved, but as the contents thereof were not proved, the same cannot be taken into account. If either of the parties later on files during the course of the hearing an application to expunge the document admitted in record, the court may hearing the parties expunge the same if it finds that the document is not legally and correctly proved & exhibited. In short, by exhibiting the document merits or demerits thereof are not dissected, and the rights and obligations of the parties are not finally decided, or legal complexion is not given to the issue that arises for consideration as giving exhibit to the document is the procedural aspect of the matter and it merely shows that document is formally proved. The rights & obligations of the parties are to be decided while finally appreciating the evidence for the purpose of pronouncing final verdict. In view of the matter, the order passed, admitting the letters and greeting cards, in evidence can be said to be the interlocutory order. 6. Some of the decisions on the point in support of my such view may be referred to. In view of the matter, the order passed, admitting the letters and greeting cards, in evidence can be said to be the interlocutory order. 6. Some of the decisions on the point in support of my such view may be referred to. In the case of Indra Nath Guha v. State of West Bengal, 1979 Cr.L.J. Noc 129 (Cal.), when likewise question was raised with regards to the admissibility of the oral evidence, it is held that the order concerning the admissibility of oral evidence is an interlocutory order and not the final order. This decision can mutatis mutandis be made applicable to the documentary evidence also. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhaiyalal v. Ram Din, AIR 1989 All 130 has held that by mere fact the document is exhibited, it does not follow that the Court stands precluded from examining the question on the basis of evidence led by the parties whether the document in question was exempted by the party by which it purports to have been executed. The fact that document is exhibited, it merely establishes that it has been formally proved. But where the execution of the document is challenged, the court of fact is clearly entitled to weigh the evidence led by the parties and decide whether the document was really executed by the party alleged to have executed the same. In Manohar Nath Sher v. State of J.&K., 1980 CrLJ 292 , it is held that order allowing or disallowing the production of the document does not put an end to proceedings in which the order is made. Such an order is only a step in the proceeding and it relates to a procedural matter and does not purport to decide the rights of the parties. Such an order is the interlocutory order and revision against the same is not maintainable. The High Court of Lahore in Robert Cameron Chamarette v. Mrs. Phyllis Ethel Chamarette, A.I.R. 1937 Lahore 176 has held that admissibility of a particular evidence is the interlocutory order which can subsequently be held to be inadmissible though ofcourse it is not so done often. The High Court of Lahore in Robert Cameron Chamarette v. Mrs. Phyllis Ethel Chamarette, A.I.R. 1937 Lahore 176 has held that admissibility of a particular evidence is the interlocutory order which can subsequently be held to be inadmissible though ofcourse it is not so done often. All these decisions abundantly make it clear that the document if exhibited by the Court passing the order, the order which is passed would be the interlocutory order and not the final order determining the rights and liabilities of the parties finally because subsequently either of the parties can question the genuineness of the document and in that case it is open to the Court to accept or discard the document having due regards to the facts and circumstances on record. This revision application against the order in question is, therefore, in view of Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable, as the order in question is the interlocutory order. 7. It is contended by the learned APP, that the document can be exhibited only after the other side cross-examines the witness, or re-examines the witness as the case may be. The document ought not to have been exhibited as prosecution was not given the chance to Re-examine putting the question which can be put in cross-examination. The contention does not gain a ground to stand upon. Neither any procedural law nor any provision of the Evidence Act mandates to exhibit the document only after the other side assails, either in the cross-examination or in the re-examination, the statements made by the witness qua the proof of the document and the Court is satisfied about the reliability of the evidence in that regard. Whatever may be the stage of the examination, if the document is found to have been duly proved because of necessary statements regarding proof thereof having been made by the witness, the Court may exhibit and admit the same in evidence apart from the question of its appreciation later on, or challenge to be made by the other side which has been sought to be done in the present case. The contention therefore must fail. It may be mentioned that the right of the prosecution to assail the exhibition of the document is not curtailed or taken away by such observation. 8. The contention therefore must fail. It may be mentioned that the right of the prosecution to assail the exhibition of the document is not curtailed or taken away by such observation. 8. As per Sec. 67 of the Indian Evidence Act a document is required to be proved in the manner provided by Sec. 45, 47 or 73 of that Act or by internal proof afforded by its own contents. Sec. 47 provides different methods of proving the handwriting of a person. Under Sec. 67 if a document is signed by a person or written wholly or in part by any person, the signature of that person or handwriting of that person must be proved to be in his handwriting. If Sections 47 and 67 of the Evidence Act are read together, what can reasonably be deduced is that the signature of a person on a document can be proved either by examining the person in whose presence the signature was affixed, or else by examining another person who is acquainted with the handwriting of the executant of the document, or the person alleged to have written the document and is able to prove his signature by his opinion. When Sections 45 & 47 of the Evidence Act are read together, what can be deduced is that for proving the handwriting and signature the opinion of the expert and of the persons acquainted with the handwriting of that person are relevant." As the entire focus is on Section 65B of the Evidence Act, I must look into the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. (supra). Few relevant observations therein are quoted herein below : "15. 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. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. 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. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an 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 a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act: (i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer; (ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity; (iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and (iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. 16. 16. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement; (b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced; (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record; (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and (e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. 17. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. 18. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A - Opinion of examiner of electronic evidence. 19. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India. 20. It is relevant to note that Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE) dealing with evidence on computer records in the United Kingdom was repealed by Section 60 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999. Computer evidence hence must follow the common law rule, where a presumption exists that the computer producing the evidential output was recording properly at the material time. Computer evidence hence must follow the common law rule, where a presumption exists that the computer producing the evidential output was recording properly at the material time. The presumption can be rebutted if evidence to the contrary is adduced. In the United States of America, under Federal Rule of Evidence, reliability of records normally go to the weight of evidence and not to admissibility. 21. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete Code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield. 22. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru1, a two-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider an issue on production of electronic record as evidence. While considering the printouts of the computerized records of the calls pertaining to the cellphones, it was held at Paragraph-150 as follows: "150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, "copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies". Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65." 23. It may be seen that it was a case where a responsible official had duly certified the document at the time of production itself. The signatures in the certificate were also identified. That is apparently in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, it was held that irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a special provision dealing with admissibility of the electronic record, there is no bar in adducing secondary evidence, under Sections 63 and 65, of an electronic record. 24. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible." In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellant indisputably had not produced any certificate in terms of Section 65B in respect of the CDs. In such circumstances, the Court took the view that the same could not have been admitted in evidence. The observations in para-26 are also important. "The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence on electronic record with reference to Sections 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act." I have to my benefit a very exhaustive, erudite and lucid decision on the subject delivered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kundan Singh (supra). I may quote the relevant observations thus : "31. We would now refer to the legal position and what is admissible and proved by the prosecution. We begin by examining the statutory provisions. I may quote the relevant observations thus : "31. We would now refer to the legal position and what is admissible and proved by the prosecution. We begin by examining the statutory provisions. Section 3 of the Evidence Act in sub-section (2) stipulates that documentary evidence means and includes all documents including "electronic records" produced for the inspection of the Court. By way of amendment to the Evidence Act, incorporated by Act, No. 21 of 2000, the following was inserted: "The expression "Certifying Authority", "Digital Signature", "Digital Signature Certificate", "electronic form", "electronic records", "information", "secure electronic records", "secured digital signature" and "subscriber" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Information Technology Act, 2000." 32. Section 2(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 reads- "electronic record" means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro record." 33. Section 22-A of the Evidence Act reads as follows: "22-A. When oral admission as to contents of electronic records are relevant.- Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question." 34. Section 45-A of the Evidence Act reads as follows: "45-A. Opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence.- When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in Section 79-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), is a relevant fact. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence shall be an expert." 35. Section 59 under Part II of the Evidence Act dealing with proof, reads as follows: "59. Proof of facts by oral evidence.- All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence." 36. Section 65-A reads as follows: "65-A. Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record.- The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B." 37. Proof of facts by oral evidence.- All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence." 36. Section 65-A reads as follows: "65-A. Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record.- The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65-B." 37. Section 65-B reads as follows: "65-B. Admissibility of electronic records.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as "the computer output") shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this 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. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely- (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 contents; 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. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether- (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In 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 involved 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 the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section- (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process." 38. Section 22-A of the Evidence Act is the part of fasciculus of Sections from 17 to 31 under the heading „Admissions?. It specifically deals with relevancy of oral admissions as to the contents of an electronic document and was inserted w.e.f. 17.10.2000 by the Information Technology Act, 2000. Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic record are relevant when genuineness of the electronic record is in question. The expression "unless the genuineness ... is in question", elucidates the ambit and relevance of the Section. Use of word "relevant", viz. "admissibility" is also of significance, though these terms are interlaced and connected. The object of providing said provision recognizes that the evidence relating to genuineness or "reliability" of electronic record is of consequence, in-spite of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Thus, Section 22A specifically provides that when genuineness of an electronic record is in question, oral admissions are relevant and could be examined. As noticed below, it states and records the obvious. 39. Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, consists of four subsections. Sub-section (1) begins with non-obstante clause and gives primacy and overriding effect to the said provision. A dissection of that sub-section would reveal that it consists of distinct parts. As noticed below, it states and records the obvious. 39. Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, consists of four subsections. Sub-section (1) begins with non-obstante clause and gives primacy and overriding effect to the said provision. A dissection of that sub-section would reveal that it consists of distinct parts. The first part stipulates that any information contained in the electronic record in the form of paper print output or optical or magnetic media output, i.e. the electronic record copied, stored or recorded on an optical or magnetic media from another source, shall be deemed to be a document. The first part, therefore, deals with the paper printout or optical or magnetic media on which the electronic record has been copied, stored or recorded as distinct from the original media on which the data or information is created, or recorded, stored or copied. Media and paper print outs are tangible articles. Paper print outs can be seen and read. Media can also be seen and read, when viewed with an appropriate equipment and paper printouts taken. Noticeably and pertinently, the paper printout output or the optical or magnetic media output, on satisfaction of the conditions stipulated in Section 65B is treated as a document by itself. The conditions would relate to the information and the computer from which the printout on paper or optical or magnetic media has been produced by copying, recording or storing the files. The following part, states that when the conditions mentioned in the section in relation to (a) information (b) computers are satisfied, the document i.e. the printed paper or the optical or magnetic media on which the files have been copied, stored and recorded, shall be admissible in evidence, without further proof or production of the original. In such circumstances, production of the original computer or equipment from which the paper print out or media was produced by copying, recording or storing the files is not required to be produced. Once the requirements are satisfied, the printed document or the optical or magnetic media would be evidence of the contents as to what was stored in the computer from which the print out, or media was created by way of copying, recording or storing files. The last part therefore deals with the effect, when the requirements stated in Section 65B are satisfied. 40. The last part therefore deals with the effect, when the requirements stated in Section 65B are satisfied. 40. The computer output - when provisions of section 65-B are satisfied is treated as evidence of the contents of the original or facts therein of which direct evidence is admissible. The secondary evidence in the form of a paper print out or media output produced by copying, recording or storing files is treated as a document and are admissible and bear the same status as "direct evidence" on the question of admissibility. The provision, therefore, negates and does not require production of the original computer/equipment/media, on which the data was stored and from which computer output be it in the form of printed paper or optical or magnetic media data has been obtained. The expression "direct evidence" as strictly understood in the Evidence Act, has been explained below. 41. Sub-section 2 to Section 65B explains and elucidates the term "computer output? and in a manner expounds and expands what is meant by the original device or computer from which output is obtained. As per sub-clause (a) to sub-section 2 computer output can consist of information produced by the computer during the period the computer was regularly used to store or process the information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over "that period" by a person, having lawful control over the use of the computer. Clause (b) states that information contained in the electronic record or derived from should be regularly fed into the computer in ordinary course of the said activities. Clause (c) postulates that the computer during the relevant period should have operated properly and if it had not operated properly or was out of operation for a part of the period, such failure should not affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents. Lastly, sub-clause (d) recognizes that electronic record could consist of data or information collected or fed into the computer. The word "derived" used in Sub-section 2 of Section 65B finds its meaning and exposition in the explanation. The said expression for the purpose of section 65B would mean, derived as a result of calculation, operation or any other process. The word derive, therefore, has been given a specific and affirmative meaning for Section 65B. 42. The word "derived" used in Sub-section 2 of Section 65B finds its meaning and exposition in the explanation. The said expression for the purpose of section 65B would mean, derived as a result of calculation, operation or any other process. The word derive, therefore, has been given a specific and affirmative meaning for Section 65B. 42. Sub-section (3) to Section 65B elucidates and explains sub-section (2) and provides that the output produced could be of data stored or information processed by combination of computers operating simultaneously during that period or different computers in succession over the period in question or even multiple computers operating in succession over the period. Subsection acknowledges and accepts that the computer, i.e., device from which "computer output" is obtained, may be one in the combination of computers used or even one operating in succession. The provisions recognises that information or data is easily and frequently for convenience, business or technical reasons transferred, copied, recorded or stored in different machines/equipment simultaneously or in succession. The importance and relevancy of information could arise subsequently and long after it is created. Back- up or archives are maintained to store specific and important information. In such cases, all computers used for the purpose during the period in question from the beginning till the period where the output is obtained, are treated and regarded as the single computer for the purpose of the Section. 43. Before we advert to sub-section (4), it may be advisable to first expound sub-section (5) for the said Section is relevant for interpreting sub-sections (1), (2) and (3). As per sub-clause (a) to sub-section (5), information is taken to have been supplied to a computer when it is supplied in any appropriate form and whether it is done directly, i.e. as in the case of call record data which gets recorded in the computer/server without any interference, or with human intervention, as where a data entry operator gives commands or uses a key board to feed the data or when the sales man punches in details of the sales made. Importantly, the information or data could be supplied to the computer from which the computer output is taken, by means of an appropriate equipment. This transfer can be with or without human intervention. Importantly, the information or data could be supplied to the computer from which the computer output is taken, by means of an appropriate equipment. This transfer can be with or without human intervention. For example, data or information stored in one computer can be transferred to another computer as a result of pre-fixed or standard commands after particular period of time or as a result of specific commands given as a result of human interference. Sub-clause (a) to sub-section (5) recognises that data or information can be created and then transferred, copied and stored to the computer from which output is obtained by different modes and ways. Transfer of information or data in form of files after they are first created are frequent and a common occurrence. The impact of sub-clause (a) to sub-section (5) is to be noticed and given effect to when we interpret and apply sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 65B to a factual matrix of a given case. Sub-clause (c) to sub-section (5) is clarificatory in nature and states that computer output can be produced directly as it can happen when data or information stored in the computer is printed as a result of pre-existing commands. It can happen also when a command to take print out or to copy, store or record is given with human intervention. The computer output may be a result of appropriate equipment attached to the computer. 44. Sub-clause (b) to sub-section (5) is rather ambiguously uses the expression "any official" without explaining what is meant by the said term. However, when we read sub-section (4) to Section 65B, the meaning to be given to the expression "any official" emerges. Sub- clause (b) applies when information is supplied to "any official" in the course of activities carried on by him, i.e., in the course of "official" activities with a view that the said information shall be stored and processed for the purpose of the activities carried on by that officer or official. It is also elucidated that the information could be beyond or otherwise in the course of the said activities. Even in such cases the information is treated as supplied in the course of the activities of the official. It is also elucidated that the information could be beyond or otherwise in the course of the said activities. Even in such cases the information is treated as supplied in the course of the activities of the official. We clarify that the word "official", as used in clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 65B, is not intended to mean or be restricted to a person holding an office or employed in public capacity. It connotes, as exemplified by the use of the same expression (albeit in its adjective form) in sub-section (4), a person primarily responsible for the management or the use, upkeep or operations of such device. It would, thus, cover a computer device containing electronic records in the hands or control of a private individual or entity. 45. The certificate under sub-section (4) to Section 65B must state the following: (a) Identify the electronic record by identifying the statement, i.e., "computer output" in form of paper print out or copied, recorded or stored optical or magnetic media. (b) Particulars of the device involved in the production of that electronic record to show that the electronic record was produced by the computer; and (c) State that the computer output contains information, which was stored or fed into the computer over the stated period when computer was regularly used to store or process information, and that the computer output consists of information or data or is derived from information regularly fed into the computer in ordinary course of such activities. (d) The certificate should also state as required by sub-clause (c) to sub-section (2) that the computer was during the relevant periods was operating properly and if it was not operating properly during the period or a part of the said period, it had not affected the electronic record or accuracy thereof. 46. Controversy has arisen whether a certificate under sub-section (4) to Section 65B must be issued simultaneously with the production of the computer output or a certificate under Section 65B can be issued and tendered when the computer output itself is tendered to be admitted as evidence in the court or as in the present case by the official when he was recalled to give evidence. In Anwar P.V. (S) versus P.K. Basheer and Others, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "15. In Anwar P.V. (S) versus P.K. Basheer and Others, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "15. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice." 47. The expression used in the said paragraph is when the electronic record is "produced in evidence". Earlier portion of the same sentence emphasises the importance of certificate under Section 65B and the ratio mandates that the said certificate must accompany the electronic record when the same is "produced in evidence". To us, the aforesaid paragraph does not postulate or propound a ratio that the computer output when reproduced as a paper print out or on optical or magnetic media must be simultaneously certified by an authorised person under sub-section (4) to Section 65B. This is not so stated in Section 65B or sub-section (4) thereof. Of course, it is necessary that the person giving the certificate under sub-section (4) to Section 65B should be in a position to certify and state that the electronic record meets the stipulations and conditions mentioned in sub-section (2), identify the electronic record, describe the manner in which "computer output" was produced and also give particulars of the device involved in production of the electronic record for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was prepared by the computer. The aforesaid legal ratio, in our opinion, gets affirmation from paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment in Anwar P.V. (supra), which read as under:- 20. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, a two-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider an issue on production of electronic record as evidence. The aforesaid legal ratio, in our opinion, gets affirmation from paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment in Anwar P.V. (supra), which read as under:- 20. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, a two-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider an issue on production of electronic record as evidence. While considering the printouts of the computerized records of the calls pertaining to the cellphones, it was held at Paragraph-150 as follows: "150. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means and includes, among other things, "copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies". Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in subsection (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65." 21. It may be seen that it was a case where a responsible official had duly certified the document at the time of production itself. The signatures in the certificate were also identified. That is apparently in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It may be seen that it was a case where a responsible official had duly certified the document at the time of production itself. The signatures in the certificate were also identified. That is apparently in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, it was held that irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a special provision dealing with admissibility of the electronic record, there is no bar in adducing secondary evidence, under Sections 63 and 65, of an electronic record." 48. Paragraph 21 quoted above records and notices that in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afzal Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 , a responsible officer had certified the document at the time of production itself and the signatures in the certificate were also identified and, therefore, there was compliance of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. In these circumstances, we do not accept the legal ratio in Ankur Chawla versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (Crl. M.C. No. 2455/12 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 8308 and 8318/2014 and Crl. Rev. P. 385/2012 decided on 20th November, 2014 by the Delhi High Court) wherein it has been held that the certificate under Section 65B must be issued when the computer output was formally filed in the court and certificate under Section 65B cannot be produced when the evidence in form of electronic record is tendered in the court as evidence to be marked as an exhibit. The said certificate can be produced when the electronic record is to be admitted and taken on record, i.e., when the prosecution, defence or a party to the civil litigation wants the electronic record to be marked as an exhibit and read in evidence. As far back as 1931, the Lahore High Court in Baldeo Sahai versus Ram Chander and Others, AIR 1931 Lahore 546 had stated:- "There are two stages relating to documents. One is the stage when all the documents on which the parties rely are filed by them in Court. The next stage is when the documents proved and formally tendered in evidence. It is at this later stage that the Court has to decide whether they should be admitted or rejected. One is the stage when all the documents on which the parties rely are filed by them in Court. The next stage is when the documents proved and formally tendered in evidence. It is at this later stage that the Court has to decide whether they should be admitted or rejected. If they are admitted and proved then the seal of the Court is put on them giving certain details laid down by law, otherwise the documents are resumed to the party who produced them with an endorsement thereon to that effect." 49. The aforesaid judgment was quoted with approval in Sudhir Engineering Company versus Nitco Roadways Limited, 1995 (34) DRJ 86 wherein it was observed as under:- "Let me now look at the law. Any document filed by either party passes through three stages before it is held proved or disproved. These are: first stage: when the documents are filed by either party in the Court; these documents though on file, do not become part of the judicial record; second stage: when the documents are tendered or produced in evidence by a party and the Court admits the documents in evidence. A document admitted in evidence becomes a part of the judicial record of the case and constitutes evidence. Third stage: the documents which are held "proved, not proved or disproved? when the Court is called upon to apply its judicial mind by reference to Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Usually this stage arrives 31 the final hearing of the suit or proceeding." 50. Anwar P.V. (supra) partly overruled the earlier decision of the Supreme Court on the procedure to prove electronic record(s) in Navjot Sandhu (supra), holding that Section 65B is a specific provision relating to the admissibility of electronic record(s) and, therefore, production of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory. Anwar P.V. (supra) does not state or hold that the said certificate cannot be produced in exercise of powers of the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C or, at the appellate stage under Section 391 Cr.P.C. Evidence Act is a procedural law and in view of the pronouncement in Anwar P.V. (supra) partly overruling Navjot Sandhu (supra), the prosecution may be entitled to invoke the aforementioned provisions, when justified and required. Of course, it is open to the court/presiding officer at that time to ascertain and verify whether the responsible officer could issue the said certificate and meet the requirements of Section 65B. 51. On the questions of importance of electronic evidence in investigation and increasing impact of technology in everyday life, in Tomaso Bruno versus State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178 , it has been observed: "25. With the advancement of information technology, scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional level is to pervade the methods of investigation. With the increasing impact of technology in everyday life and as a result, the production of electronic evidence in cases has become relevant to establish the guilt of the accused or the liability of the defendant. Electronic documents strictu sensu are admitted as material evidence. With the amendment to the Indian Evidence Act in 2000, Sections 65A and 65B were introduced into Chapter V relating to documentary evidence. Section 65A provides that contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65B is complied with. The computer generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65B makes admissible as a document, paper print out of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 65B. Secondary evidence of contents of document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. PW-13 stated that he saw the full video recording of the fateful night in the CCTV camera, but he has not recorded the same in the case diary as nothing substantial to be adduced as evidence was present in it. 26. Production of scientific and electronic evidence in court as contemplated under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is of great help to the investigating agency and also to the prosecution. The relevance of electronic evidence is also evident in the light of Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 , wherein production of transcripts of internet transactions helped the prosecution case a great deal in proving the guilt of the accused. The relevance of electronic evidence is also evident in the light of Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 , wherein production of transcripts of internet transactions helped the prosecution case a great deal in proving the guilt of the accused. Similarly, in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 , the links between the slain terrorists and the masterminds of the attack were established only through phone call transcripts obtained from the mobile service providers." 52. Emails are downloaded and computer output, in the form of paper prints, are taken every day. These emails may become relevant and important electronic evidence, subsequently. It is difficult to conceive and accept that the emails would be inadmissible, if the official i.e. the person who downloaded them and had taken printouts had failed to, on that occasion or simultaneously record a certificate under Section 65B. 53. Section 65B is a part of Chapter V of the Evidence Act, which relates to documentary evidence. Documentary evidence can be primary as defined in Section 62, which means the document itself, or secondary which refers to certified copies or copies made from original and even oral accounts of the contents of documents by a person, who has seen the same. Section 64 states that documents must be proved by primary evidence, except when secondary evidence is permitted and allowed. Section 65 states that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when any of the sub- clauses (a) to (g) apply. In case of sub-clauses (a), (c) and (d), secondary evidence can be given even of the contents and the same is admissible. As noticed above, electronic record is by deeming fiction treated as a document for the purpose of Evidence Act. 54. Section 65A states that contents of electronic record may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B. We have already interpreted and referred to Section 65B. As noticed above, electronic record is by deeming fiction treated as a document for the purpose of Evidence Act. 54. Section 65A states that contents of electronic record may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B. We have already interpreted and referred to Section 65B. The importance of the said Section is that it does away with the requirement to produce the original computer or the original media on which data or information was stored and allows the secondary evidence in the form of computer output to be produced and admitted in evidence, subject to the condition that when evidence of computer output is produced and tendered, certificate of a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to operation of the relevant device or management of the relevant activities as prescribed by Section 65B of the Evidence Act is produced. In this manner, Section 65B authorises production and admission, in evidence, all computer output without production of the original, i.e., it permits leading of secondary evidence without the original being produced. It is in this context that in Anwar P.V. (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 had stated and held as under:- "24. The situation would have been different had the appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements been duly got seized through the police or Election Commission and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence on electronic record with reference to Section 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act." 55. The aforesaid paragraph clearly states that when electronic record is produced as primary evidence, i.e., the original recording itself is produced, the requirement or satisfaction of condition of Section 65B is not required. 56. Sub-section (1) to Section 65B states that when electronic record is produced in terms of the said Section, there is no need for further proof or production of the original as evidence of any of the contents of the original or facts stated therein of which "direct evidence" would be admissible. The term "direct evidence" is opposite of second-hand or hearsay evidence. Section 60 of the Evidence Act states that oral evidence must in all cases be direct, that is to say, it refers to a fact which could be seen be the evidence of a witness who has seen the occurrence, or if it refers to the fact which could be heard the witness should have heard the said words, or if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or any other manner it must have been perceived by the witness by that sense or in that manner. 57. The term "hearsay" applies to both spoken or oral evidence and also has reference to what is written. Hearsay evidence is rejected on the principle that the best evidence obtainable should be produced as it is relatively trustworthy, whereas hearsay evidence poses difficulties for it derives value not from the witness himself, but on the veracity and competence of some other person whose version is not tested in the cross-examination. 58. For principle of hearsay to apply and reject an evidence, it must be shown that it was made by some other declarant other than the one testifying at the trial of hearing and the statement is being offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Therefore, even if the evidence is an assertion made by the declarant, it will not be hearsay until it is offered to prove the truth of what is asserted. 59. A statement which is not assertion, i.e., to state the truth declared and maintained, but only a statement of fact is not hearsay. Therefore, even if the evidence is an assertion made by the declarant, it will not be hearsay until it is offered to prove the truth of what is asserted. 59. A statement which is not assertion, i.e., to state the truth declared and maintained, but only a statement of fact is not hearsay. A hearsay declarants non-verbal conduct may qualify as a "statement" for purpose of exclusion under the hearsay rule, if the conduct of the person intended by him as a substitute for oral or written verbal expression.(see, Matter of Cherl H., 2 Dist. 153 CA 3d 1098). Pertinently, in case of self-generated data or information there is no declarant as such who is asserting a fact. 60. Evidence may be offered for different purposes. The same evidence can be treated as hearsay and non-hearsay depending upon its relevance, i.e., whether it is relevant for a substantive truth or for some other purpose. For example, when person A meets person B and speaks to him about an occurrence, testimony of person B to the said effect would not be hearsay, but may become hearsay if a party seeks to rely upon facts stated by person A implicating a third person. Thus, we must notice and record the difference between a "factum of statement" and "truth of a statement". The said distinction has been recognised and accepted in several pronouncements in J.D. Jain versus State Bank of India, AIR 1982 SC 673 , Manilal Navavati versus Sushila Mahendra Nanavati, AIR 1965 SC 364 and S.R. Ramaraj versus Special Court, Bombay, (2003) 7 SCC 175 . Thus, electronic record produced as a statement as a tangible in form of a CD, print out on paper, etc. as a fact in itself, must be distinguished from electronic record, which is produced to prove truth of the matter it asserts or correctness of contents for the latter postulates adjudication of veracity and credibility of the information by the person who has made a statement offering or producing the document for its truth. 61. In view of the aforesaid discussion, information memorised as business record or records maintained in common course of events are not treated as hearsay even if the maker lacks personal knowledge of the facts or events. 61. In view of the aforesaid discussion, information memorised as business record or records maintained in common course of events are not treated as hearsay even if the maker lacks personal knowledge of the facts or events. The document should be prepared in normal course of business must have been at or near the time of events it records and should have been made in normal course of business activities or events. Sub-section (4) to Section 65B postulates that the certificate should be given by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to operation of the relevant device or management of the relevant activities. If the said conditions are satisfied, it promotes and establishes the trustworthiness. In such cases, presumption of fact regarding genuineness and authenticity of the content can be invoked at the discretion of the court under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 62. In Anwar P.V. (supra) in paragraph 1 itself the Supreme Court noticed the difference between relevancy and admissibility, which is examined at the initial stage; and genuineness, veracity and reliability of the evidence, which is seen by the court subsequently. Thus, the ratio and dictum in Anwar P.V. (supra) is based and predicated on the difference between admissibility and veracity or evidentiary value. The Supreme Court dealt with the aspect of admissibility in strict legal sense, not to be confused with evidentiary value or correctness of contents. Of course, when the conditions mentioned in Section 65B are satisfied, in terms of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the court may presume existence of certain facts for the computer output would have data and information collected or derived in common course of human conduct and in public and private business. 63. In terms of sub-section (1) to Section 65B, original evidence need not be produced when conditions of Section 65B are satisfied. The computer output in relation to the information and computer in question are admissible as secondary evidence, when certificate under Section 65B is produced. However, Section 65B nowhere states that the contents of the computer output shall be treated as the truth of the statement. Section 65B deals with admissibility of secondary evidence in the case of "electronic records" and not with the truthfulness or veracity of the contents. However, Section 65B nowhere states that the contents of the computer output shall be treated as the truth of the statement. Section 65B deals with admissibility of secondary evidence in the case of "electronic records" and not with the truthfulness or veracity of the contents. However, when a certificate under Section 65B is produced the Court may presume or form a prima facie opinion, which is rebuttable and may not be accepted. 64. Electronically generated record is entirely a product of functioning of a computer system or computer process, like call record details or a report generated on a fax, which shows the number from and to which the fax were sent, time, etc. is generated electronically. It does not contain any assertion. Therefore, as noticed above it is not hearsay. These are not writings made by a person (see United States versus Khorozian, 333 F. 3d 498, 506). Normally non-assertive conduct is more reliable, provided there has been no fraud and interpolation in the preparation of the record. Computer generated telephone records are not similar to a statement by a human declarant and, therefore, cannot be treated as hearsay and the credibility and evidentiary value is determined on the reliability and accuracy of the process involved. Ergo, in these cases when conditions of Section 65B are satisfied, the probative value or weight can be substantial of course, subject to verification as to the credibility and integrity of the contents. 65. We have already referred to the distinction between factum of a statement and truth of a statement and the concept of presumption of memorandum or records maintained in normal course of business and the credibility or trustworthiness of electronic records. However, it must be understood that mere admission or admissibility of the electronic record would not mean that the contents of the electronic record have been proved beyond doubt and debate and are automatically proved when the document is marked exhibit. Mere marking of a document as exhibit does not dispense with the proof of its contents (see Sait Tarajee Khimchand versus Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865 , Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC 745 and Mohd. Yusuf versus D. and Another, AIR 1968 Bom. 112 ). Mere marking of a document as exhibit does not dispense with the proof of its contents (see Sait Tarajee Khimchand versus Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865 , Narbada Devi Gupta versus Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC 745 and Mohd. Yusuf versus D. and Another, AIR 1968 Bom. 112 ). Provisions of Section 65 of Evidence Act are apposite on the said legal principle and reference can also be made to Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. The latter sections deal with exclusion of oral evidence by documentary evidence in certain cases and in which cases oral evidence can be led even when there are documents recording terms of contract, grant or any other disposition of property or when a matter is required by law to be reduced to a form of a document. The effect of the aforesaid provisions is that when a certificate under Section 65B authenticates the computer output, it will only show and establish that the computer output is the paper print out or media copy, etc. of the computer from which the output is obtained. The court has still to rule out when challenged or otherwise, the possibility of tampering, interpolation or changes from the date the record was first stored or created in the computer till the computer output is obtained. The focus over here is not so much on the creation of the out-put as stipulated under sub-section (2) to Section 65B, but rather on the preservation and sanctity of the record after it was originally created. It extends beyond identification of the particular computer equipment and the process or equipment used for computer output, etc. It would relate to the policies, procedures for use of the equipment that stored the said information since creation and data base and integrity of the same. Questions which would arise and have to be answered is whether data base was protected and had no or limited access, which permits modification/alteration; whether the data base could be wrongly lodged or created or could be transferred or changed when the data base was transferred and stored in the backup systems. These are questions which are pertinent and have to be examined to ascertain whether or not there was possibility of change, alteration or manipulation in the initial or original data after it was created. These are questions which are pertinent and have to be examined to ascertain whether or not there was possibility of change, alteration or manipulation in the initial or original data after it was created. The courts must rule out that the records have not been tampered and read the data or information as it originally existed. These are aspects which are not codified as such, for probative value is examined on the case to case basis keeping in mind the relevant facts." I am with respect in complete agreement with the reasonings assigned by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kundan Singh (supra) and I propose to follow the same. Applying the dictum as laid in the Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application Exh.883. No fault has been found so far as the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is concerned except the omission to state in the certificate or failure to declare as to under whose control the laptop was at the time when the witness and her husband were in jail. The certificate should contain the following : (1) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement; (2) Describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced; (3) Furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record; (4) Deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; (5) Be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. The person giving the certificate only needs to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Before the judgment in Anvar (supra), the law laid down in State of NCT Delhi v Navjyot Singh, (2005)11 SCC 600 , was being followed, which held that irrespective of the compliance with requirements of Section 65-B, there was no bar in adducing the secondary evidence even for the electronic records as per Sections 63 and Section 65. Before the judgment in Anvar (supra), the law laid down in State of NCT Delhi v Navjyot Singh, (2005)11 SCC 600 , was being followed, which held that irrespective of the compliance with requirements of Section 65-B, there was no bar in adducing the secondary evidence even for the electronic records as per Sections 63 and Section 65. The court further held that even if a certificate containing the details as stipulated by sub-section (4) of Section 65-B was not filed, it did not render the evidence inadmissible as secondary evidence under Section 63 and Section 65 can still be adduced. However, the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) overruled the above position. The Court held that for any electronic evidence to be admissible in its secondary form, it is necessary to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 65- B, which includes giving a certificate as per terms of Section 65-B (4), at the time of proving the record and not anytime later, failing which the electronic record will be considered inadmissible. The entire line of reasoning assigned by the trial Court is on a wrong footing. If primary evidence would have been available, then there would have been no question of producing any certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for the purpose of adducing the secondary evidence. In terms of sub-section (1) to Section 65B, the original evidence need not be produced when the conditions of Section 65B are satisfied. The computer output in relation to the information and the computer in question are admissible as secondary evidence, when the certificate under Section 65B is produced. However, Section 65B nowhere states that the contents of the computer output shall be treated as the truth of the statement. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of secondary evidence in the case of 'electronic records' and not with the truthfulness or veracity of the contents. However, when a certificate under Section 65B is produced, the Court may presume or form a prima facie opinion, which is rebuttable and may not be accepted. In such circumstances referred to above, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Court below is hereby quashed and set-aside. The trial Court shall take the document in the form of Compact Disc (CD) on record and give a tentative exhibit. In such circumstances referred to above, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Court below is hereby quashed and set-aside. The trial Court shall take the document in the form of Compact Disc (CD) on record and give a tentative exhibit. Ultimately, if there is any challenge or otherwise to the authenticity of the document, like possibility of tampering, interpolation or changes from the date the record was first stored or created in the computer till the computer output was obtained, the same can be looked into by the trial Court in accordance with law. If need be and if the occasion demands, the trial Court may take the aid of Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. With the above, this application is disposed of.