Topic
Electronic evidence in Indian law refers to digital data admissible in court under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, requiring a certified authenticity certificate for admissibility.
CESTAT Chennai held electronic records inadmissible under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act for non-compliance, quashing a ₹4.08 crore duty demand and ₹2 crore penalty, stressing procedural compliance essential for digital evidence in tax disputes.
The Calcutta High Court held that emails showing consensus ad idem can support a specific performance injunction without strict Section 65B compliance, clarifying that informal electronic evidence may prove contracts in property disputes.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a compact-disc and transcript alleging the wife’s adultery can be used as secondary evidence and must be considered when deciding interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, overturning the Family Court’s order. This establishes that secretly captured electronic material is permissible evidence in maintenance disputes, affecting spouses seeking or contesting maintenance.
An interim injunction restraining a rival from using your trademark is only as good as your ability to prove, later, that they broke it. In India, that proof usually surfaces on a phone or a laptop: a screenshot of a listing on an e-commerce site, a photograph of a shop signage,
Karnataka High Court sets a precedent under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by granting anticipatory bail to an accused not named in the FIR, emphasizing that mere allegations without incriminating evidence cannot justify denial of bail. The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in protecting personal liberty where investigation fails to establish a prima facie case.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the absence of a Section 65B certificate does not permanently bar defence evidence in cheque bounce cases. The accused may file a fresh application to cure the defect, ensuring fair trial rights are not sacrificed over procedural technicalities. This clarifies that Section 65B’s certificate requirement is curable, not fatal, when applied to defence documents.
Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that under Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, a certificate from the custodian of the original electronic device-not the opposing party-is essential for admitting secondary electronic evidence. Non-compliance renders the evidence inadmissible, reinforcing strict procedural compliance in digital evidence submission.
Punjab & Haryana HC rules that bail in economic offences can be denied at the pre-charge stage if multiple similar FIRs and electronic evidence demonstrate a pattern of fraud, outweighing claims of civil dispute. The ruling reinforces that repeated fraudulent conduct and admissions of liability are sufficient grounds for bail denial, even without a charge sheet.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that electronic evidence from personal devices, including WhatsApp chats, emails, and digital photographs, can be admitted under Section 65B of the Evidence Act with a self-certificate alone, provided it meets statutory requirements. This clarifies a critical procedural hurdle in family law and other litigation, eliminating the need for third-party certification for evidence generated from personal devices.
Bombay High Court rules that insurers cannot rely on unauthenticated electronic records to deny motor accident claims. A valid Section 65B certificate is mandatory for digital evidence to be admissible, reinforcing procedural safeguards in insurance litigation.
CESTAT Hyderabad quashed a differential duty demand and penalties, ruling that electronic evidence like emails and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act must strictly adhere to statutory compliance, including the right to cross-examination. The decision underscores that procedural lapses in evidence collection vitiate the validity of duty demands, impacting importers and customs authorities alike.
ITAT Mumbai rules that additions under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act cannot be justified based solely on third-party electronic data (e.g., Excel files from a search) unless the assessee is confronted with the evidence and given an opportunity for cross-examination. The tribunal emphasized that unauthenticated digital documents lack evidentiary value under the Indian Evidence Act, reinforcing natural justice principles in tax proceedings.
HP High Court rules that trial courts need not mandate forensic examination of social media videos during preliminary stages, leaving authenticity determinations to evidence appreciation at trial. The ruling clarifies that Section 65B compliance and forensic testing are discretionary, not obligatory, at the pre-trial phase, impacting how electronic evidence is handled in criminal proceedings.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that applications under Section 94 BNSS for preserving electronic evidence, such as call records and digital transactions, must be decided promptly at the pre-trial stage. Delaying consideration until the defence evidence stage risks prejudice and violates Article 21 fair trial rights, particularly in alibi defences.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that electronic evidence, including call detail records, is inadmissible without a valid Section 65-B certificate. This ruling overturned a conviction reliant solely on circumstantial evidence, setting a strict precedent for the admissibility of digital records in criminal trials.