Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act must be issued by the person in whose device the original electronic recording was made. The case concerned a dispute under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, in which electronic evidence in the form of a pen drive and compact discs was sought to be relied upon. The Court ruled that since the video was recorded on a third party’s device, only that individual’s certification would validate the evidence.

The matter arose from a writ petition filed by Shwetabh Singhal challenging the order dated 02.08.2025 of the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-II. The Tribunal had allowed an application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, permitting respondent No.2, Rajendra Kumar Johri, to produce electronic evidence in the form of a Pen Drive and Compact Discs (Exhibits 8 to 44).

Also Read: No Export Duty On DTA–SEZ Supplies | Supreme Court Dismisses Union of India’s Appeals Against Adani Power Ltd.

The petitioner contended that the certificate submitted under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was invalid, as it had been issued by the respondent rather than by the person in whose device the original recording took place. According to the petitioner, the recording was made in the device of one Rajat Sancheti, and therefore only Sancheti’s certification could satisfy the statutory requirement. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (AIR 2015 SC 180), which mandated that the certificate must be issued by the individual occupying the device at the relevant time.

In reply, counsel for the respondents argued that the Tribunal had rightly allowed the evidence to be produced along with the certificate of respondent No.2. It was submitted that the petitioner had not raised any objection before the Tribunal regarding the validity of the certificate, and had only objected to the timing of the evidence. The Tribunal, after imposing costs of Rs.1500/-, had accepted the evidence with the certificate filed by respondent No.2.

The Court noted: “Now the question which remains for the consideration of this Court is that ‘Whether it is mandatory that a certificate of the person, in whose device the original video was recorded, was required to be submitted under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act or the person in whose device the material has been transferred to, is supposed to issue the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act ?’”

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, observing: “The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held in para 14(e) of the aforesaid judgment that such certificate has to be personally signed by the person, who was occupying the relevant device.”

The Court also relied on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, noting: “The Judge conducting the trial must summon the person/persons referred to in Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require that such certificate be given by such person/persons.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Pulls Up State, Election Commission Over Delay in Municipal Polls, Dismisses Plea of Former Sarpanchs Seeking Continuation as Chairpersons

The Court directed: “The certificate issued by the respondent No.2-Rajendra Kumar Johri is not valid, as the video was not recorded originally in his device. The video was recorded in the device of Rajat Sancheti whose certificate was required to be produced on the record, but the same has not been produced.”

“Since the electronic evidence is available on the record, the respondents would be at liberty to submit the certificate of Rajat Sancheti under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.” With these observations, “the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Govind Purohit
For the Respondents: Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari

Case Title: Shwetabh Singhal v. M/s J.K. and Sons & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:36375
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12210/2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand