The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a compact disc (CD) containing electronic evidence cannot be exhibited in a civil trial unless it is supported by a legally valid certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's refusal to mark the CD as an exhibit, holding that compliance with statutory requirements is mandatory before electronic records can be admitted in evidence.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a civil suit over ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Morena district. While the plaintiff sought declaration of title and permanent injunction, the defendants filed a counterclaim asserting possession of the property since 1984.
During the trial, the defendants sought to rely on a CD prepared from video clips allegedly recorded on a mobile phone. Although the trial court had earlier permitted the CD to be taken on record, it reserved the issue of its admissibility for the evidence stage.
When the defendants later requested that the CD be marked as an exhibit, the trial court refused, observing that the certificate produced under Section 65B of the Evidence Act did not satisfy the legal requirements. A similar request made during the testimony of another witness was also rejected.
The defendants challenged both orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Court's Observation
Justice Amit Seth examined the legal framework governing electronic evidence and referred extensively to the Supreme Court's rulings in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer.
The Court observed that a CD copied from a mobile phone constitutes secondary electronic evidence. Therefore, unless the original device is produced before the court, the electronic record can be admitted only if it is accompanied by a certificate fulfilling every requirement under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
"The certificate under Section 65B is intended to establish the source, authenticity and reliability of the electronic record before it is permitted to be read in evidence," the Court observed.
The High Court found that the certificate submitted by the defendants merely stated that the video clips were copied without editing. However, it failed to certify essential statutory conditions, including whether the computer used was regularly employed for processing information, whether it was functioning properly during the relevant period, and other mandatory particulars required by law.
The Court also rejected the argument that once the CD had been taken on record, the trial court was bound to mark it as an exhibit. It clarified that admissibility and mere filing of a document are separate issues, and courts are duty-bound to decide admissibility when the document is tendered in evidence.
"The very admissibility of the CD depended upon compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act," the bench noted.
Decision
Finding no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the trial court's approach, the High Court held that the refusal to exhibit the CD was legally justified. Since the defects in the Section 65B certificate were never cured, the subsequent rejection of the same electronic record was also valid.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and declined to interfere with the orders passed by the trial court.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mangilal and Others v. Nandkishore Sharma
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 5888 of 2022
Judge: Justice Amit Seth
Decision Date: 17 June 2026
