Section 65A and 65B have been added by Information Technology Act,2000. Section 65A lays down the contents of electronic records may be proved with the provisions laid in the Section 65B.Section 65B (Admissibility of electronic records) states that any information contained in electronic records which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by  a computer shall be also deemed to be 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 any further proof or production of the original.

The conditions of Section 65B are :-

1. Information was produced during the regular course of activities by the person having a lawful control over the computer’s use.
2. Information has been regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of said activities.
3. Throughout the material part of said period, the computer was operating properly or the improper operation as not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents.
4. Information contained in the electronic records reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of activities.

The primary purpose is to sanctify proof by secondary evidence. This facility of proof by secondary evidence would apply to any computer output, such output being deemed as a document. A computer output is a deemed document for the purpose of proof. Where the information was processed or fed into the computer on inter linked computers or one computer after the other in succession all the computers so used shall be treated as one single computer.

Section 65B also lays down that for the purpose of evidence, a certificate identifying the electronic records containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced by a computer and satisfying the conditions mentioned above and signed by a officer in charge of the operation or management of the related activities shall be the evidence of any matter stated in the certificate it shall be sufficient for the matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating .

Any information to be taken to be supplied to a computer , if it is done in any appropriate form whether directly with or without human intervention by means of any appropriate equipment , or any information is supplied by any official in the course of his activities with a view of storing or processing it even if the computer is being operated outside those activities . 

Audio C.D. :-

In a marital procedures for disintegration of a marriage, the spouse was affirmed to have mishandled and compromised her better half on the wireless and the equivalent was recorded on it. The issue was recorded by the spouse in an Audio C.D. The PDA was not delivered. Just the C.D was displayed. The spouse protested charging manufacture. The court requested the C.D to be set apart as a show subject to the condition that at whatever point it was played, open door for questioning ought to be given to the spouse. Where the applicant (political race request) had himself conceded that he didn’t know with regards to how and in what way the C.D was readied, it was held to be not permissible in proof. It was of no assistance to the applicant I demonstrating the charge of debasement against the brought up-and-comer back. 

Video –Conferencing :-

A proof identified with electronic record. A petition was made for delivering it by methods for video conferencing. The court said that there was no bar on assessment of an observer through video conferencing. This is normal piece of electronic strategy in this way the supplication was along these lines, permitted with regular shields. It was a case for pendente light upkeep. The spouse was forever living in America. His announcement was permitted to be recorded by the electronic gadget.

The office of recording proof by video conferencing has been now concurred in criminal cases. The court said that there can’t be any conceivable issue with receiving a similar system in common cases too. Be that as it may, fundamental safety measures must be accepted both as to distinguish observer and exactness of the gear utilized for the reasons.

Family Courts Act – Section 10(3) :-

To record proof with usage of video conferencing innovation , tact has been vested in the family court itself to record proof through such procedure . By righteousness of Section 10(3), family courts are enabled to receive their own system to show up at a settlement or to get reality of the situation.

Because of colossal development in e-administration all through the Public and Private Sector, Electronic Evidence have included into a principal mainstay of correspondence, handling and documentation. These different types of electronic proof are progressively being utilized in both Civil and Criminal Litigations. During preliminaries, Judges are regularly solicited to govern on the suitability from electronic proof and it significantly impacts the result of common claim or conviction/exoneration of the denounced. The Court keep on wrestling with this new electronic outskirts as the one of a kind sort of e-proof, just as the simplicity with which it very well may be manufactured or distorted, makes obstacle to tolerability not confronted with different confirmations. The different classifications of electronic proof, for example, site information, interpersonal organization correspondence, email, SMS/MMS and PC created records presents novel issue and difficulties for appropriate confirmation and subject to an alternate arrangement of perspectives.

Effects of Considering Electronic Evidence as Primary and Direct Evidence

Blurring the Difference between Primary and Secondary Evidence :-

By bringing all types of PC proof into the crease of essential proof, the rule has adequately obscured the contrast among essential and optional structures of proof. While the thing that matters is as yet expected to apply as for different types of reports, an exemption has been made concerning PCs. This, be that as it may, is fundamental, given the entangled idea of PC proof as far as not being effectively producible in unmistakable structure. Subsequently, while it might make for a decent contention to state that on the off chance that the word record is the first, at that point a print out of the equivalent ought to be treated as auxiliary proof, it ought to be viewed as that delivering a word report in court without the guide of print outs or CDs isn’t simply troublesome, yet very unthinkable.

Making Criminal Prosecution Easier :-

Considering the ongoing spate of fear mongering on the planet, including psychological militants utilizing exceptionally modern innovation to complete assaults, it is of incredible assistance to the arraignment to have the option to create electronic proof as immediate and essential proof in court, as they demonstrate the blame of he charged obviously superior to searching for conventional types of proof to substitute the electronic records, which may not exist.

Risk of Manipulation :-

While permitting all types of PC yield to be acceptable as essential proof, the resolution has neglected the danger of control. Messing with electronic proof isn’t exceptionally troublesome and frauds may think that its simple to change records which are to be submitted in court. Nonetheless, innovation itself has answers for such issues. PC legal sciences has sufficiently grown to discover methods of cross checking whether an electronic record has been altered, when and in what way.

Opening Potential Floodgates :-

PCs are the most generally utilized device today. A ton of different devices include PC contributes their working. Subsequently, the extent of Section 65A and 65B is to be sure enormous. Going carefully by the expression of the law, any gadget including a PC chip ought to be adducible in court as proof. Notwithstanding, viable contemplations just as morals must be borne as a top priority before letting the ambit of these Sections stream that far. For example, the Supreme Court has pronounced test aftereffects of narco-investigation to be prohibited proof since they abuse Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Leading Case Laws on Electronic Evidence :- 

• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer And Others (2014 10 SCC 473)

In this huge judgment, the Supreme Court has settled the debates emerging from the different clashing decisions just as the works on being followed in the different High Courts and the Trial Courts with respect to the suitability of the Electronic Evidences. The Court has deciphered the Section 22A, 45A, 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act and held that optional information in CD/DVD/Pen Drive are not permissible without an endorsement U/s 65 B(4) of Evidence Act. It has been explained that electronic proof without authentication U/s 65B can’t be demonstrated by oral proof and furthermore the assessment of the master U/s 45A Evidence Act can’t be turned to make such electronic proof permissible.

The judgment would have genuine ramifications in all the situations where the indictment depends on the electronic information and especially in the instances of anticorruption where the dependence is being set on the sound video accounts which are being sent as CD/DVD to the Court. In every such case, where the CD/DVD are being sent without an endorsement U/s 65B Evidence Act, such CD/DVD are not allowable in proof and further master sentiment concerning their validity can’t be investigated by the Court as clear from the Supreme Court Judgment. It was additionally seen that every one of these protections are taken to guarantee the source and credibility, which are the two trademarks relating to electronic records tried to be utilized as proof. Electronic records being increasingly helpless to altering, adjustment, transposition, extraction, and so forth without such protects, the entire preliminary dependent on verification of electronic records can prompt crime of equity.

In the anticorruption cases propelled by the CBI and anticorruption/Vigilance organizations of the State, even the first account which are recorded either in Digital Voice Recorders/cell phones are not been safeguarded and in this way, when the first chronicle is obliterated, there can’t be any inquiry of giving the declaration under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. In this manner in such cases, neither CD/DVD containing such chronicles are allowable and can’t be shown into proof nor the oral declaration or master assessment is acceptable and in that capacity, the account/information in the CD/DVD’s can’t turn into a sole reason for the conviction.

In the aforementioned Judgment, the Court has held that Section 65B of the Evidence Act being a ‘not obstante condition’ would abrogate the general law on optional proof under Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. The Section 63 and Section 65 of the Evidence Act have no application to the optional proof of the electronic proof and same will be entirely represented by the Section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court overruled the judgment set down in the State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu assumed name Afsan Guru[(2005) 11 SCC 600 by the two appointed authority Bench of the Supreme Court. The court explicitly saw that the Judgment of Navjot Sandhu supra, to the degree, the announcement of the law on acceptability of electronic proof relating to electronic record of this Court, doesn’t set down right position and required to be overruled.

The main alternatives to demonstrate the electronic record/proof is by creating the first electronic media as Primary Evidence court or it’s duplicate by way optional proof U/s 65A/65B of Evidence Act. In this way, on account of CD, DVD, Memory Card and so on containing auxiliary proof, the equivalent will be joined by the declaration as far as Section 65B acquired at the hour of taking the report, without which, the optional proof relating to that electronic record, is forbidden.

• Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke SC/0040/2015

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, while deciding the charges against accused in a corruption case observed that since audio and video CDs in question are clearly inadmissible in evidence, therefore trial court has erroneously relied upon them to conclude that a strong suspicion arises regarding petitioners criminally conspiring with co-accused to commit the offence in question. Thus, there is no material on the basis of which, it can be reasonably said that there is strong suspicion of the complicity of the petitioners in commission of the offence in question.

• Jagjit Singh v. State Of Haryana (2006) 11 SCC 1)

The speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Haryana precluded a part for surrender. When hearing the issue, the Supreme Court considered the advanced proof as meeting transcripts from the Zee News TV slot, the Aaj Tak TV station and the Haryana News of Punjab Today TV station. The court discovered that the electronic proof put on record was acceptable and maintained the dependence put by the speaker on the recorded meeting when arriving at the resolution that the voices recorded on the CD were those of the people making a move. The Supreme Court found no sickness in the speaker’s dependence on the computerized proof and the ends came to by him. The remarks for this situation show a pattern developing in Indian courts: judges are starting to perceive and value the significance of advanced proof in legitimate procedures.

• Abdul Rahaman Kunji v. State of West Bemgal (WB/0828/2014]

The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta while choosing the tolerability of email held that an email downloaded and printed from the email record of the individual can be demonstrated by prudence of Section 65B r/w Section 88A of Evidence Act. The declaration of the observer to complete such technique to download and print the equivalent is adequate to demonstrate the electronic correspondence.

• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (AIR 2005 SC 3820)

There was an intrigue against conviction following the assault on Parliament on December 13 2001. This case managed the verification and tolerability of cell phone call records. While thinking about the intrigue against the blamed for assaulting Parliament, an accommodation was made for the denounced that no dependence could be set on the cell phone call records, on the grounds that the indictment had neglected to deliver the important declaration under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court inferred that a questioning of the skillful observer familiar with the working of the PC during the pertinent time and the way in which the printouts of the call records were taken was adequate to demonstrate the call records.

CONCLUSION

The acceptability of the optional electronic proof must be decreed inside the boundaries of Section 65B of Evidence Act and the suggestion of the law settled in the ongoing judgment of the Apex Court and different other High Courts as talked about above. The recommendation is clear and express that if the optional electronic proof is without an endorsement u/s 65B of Evidence Act, it isn’t allowable and any assessment of the legal master and the affidavit of the observer in the official courtroom can’t be investigated by the court. Notwithstanding, there are hardly any holes which are as yet uncertain as what might be the destiny of the optional electronic proof seized from the denounced wherein, the authentication u/s 65B of Evidence Act can’t be taken and the blamed can’t be made observer against himself as it would be violative of the Article 19 of the Constitution of India.