“Certificate under section 65-B (4) cannot be secured by persons who are not in possession of an electronic device” is wholly incorrect. An application can always be made to a Judge for production of such a certificate.

Case: In Re Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantayal and Ors. (Supreme Court of India dated 14.07.2020) Facts of the case: Civil Appeals were referred to a Bench of Judges of Supreme Court by a Division Bench, dealing with the interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by two judgments. It was found by the court that a Division Bench judgment in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801 may need reconsideration by a Supreme Court Bench of a larger strength. In the case of Shafhi Mohammad (supra), it was observed by Supreme Court, that it can be safely held that electronic evidence is admissible and provisions under Sections 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act are by way of a clarification and are procedural provisions. If the electronic evidence is authentic and relevant, the same can certainly be admitted subject to the Court being satisfied about its authenticity and procedure for its admissibility may depend on fact situation such as whether the person producing such evidence is in a position to furnish certificate under Section 65-B (4). Decision: The Supreme Court observed that the major premise of Shafhi Mohammad (supra) that the certificate under section 65-B (4) cannot be secured by persons who are not in possession of an electronic device is incorrect. An application can always be made to a Judge for production of such a certificate from the requisite person under Section 65B (4) in cases in which such person refuses to give it.