Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 (B) Important Judgment

    Uploaded by

    Atul krishna
    19 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Haryana Government in a landmark case on electronic evidence certification under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The Court held that any objections to the mode or method of proof for a certificate must be raised during the trial, not later on appeal. It also determined that the ruling in PV Anwar's case applies retrospectively. While prospective overruling was discussed, it was considered obiter dicta rather than the ratio decidendi. This clarifies that failure to object to a certificate during the trial means the appellate court cannot raise issues with it.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    65(B) Important judgment

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Haryana Government in a landmark case on electronic evidence certification under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The Court held that any objections to the mode or method of proof for a certificate must be raised during the trial, not later on appeal. It also determined that the ruling in PV Anwar's case applies retrospectively. While prospective overruling was discussed, it was considered obiter dicta rather than the ratio decidendi. This clarifies that failure to object to a certificate during the trial means the appellate court cannot raise issues with it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    19 views1 page

    65 (B) Important Judgment

    Uploaded by

    Atul krishna
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Haryana Government in a landmark case on electronic evidence certification under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The Court held that any objections to the mode or method of proof for a certificate must be raised during the trial, not later on appeal. It also determined that the ruling in PV Anwar's case applies retrospectively. While prospective overruling was discussed, it was considered obiter dicta rather than the ratio decidendi. This clarifies that failure to object to a certificate during the trial means the appellate court cannot raise issues with it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Today I am very much delighted that in which case I assisted Haryana Government day and night in

    Supreme Court, the judgement of it has come on 18.07.2017 in our favour on the same reasoning which
    I believed it to be true and assisted. It became the landmark on “Certificate on Electronic Evidence”
    under Section 65 B (4) of Evidence Act.

    Case Name: SONU @ AMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA, Criminal Appeal 1418 of 2013

    Court in this Judgement dealt with following issue: (i) Whether certificate under 65 B (4) of Evidence Act
    as mandated by PV anwar’s case falls under “DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE INADMISSIBLE PER SE” or
    DOCUMENTS WHERE THEIR MODE OF PROOF IS INADMISSIBLE IN NATURE”? (Court considered the
    answer of this question as RATIO DECIDENDI).

    (ii) Whether objection regarding MODE OF PROOF of document can be raised at appellate stage? (Court
    considered the answer of this question as RATIO DECIDENDI)

    (iii) Whether PV anwar’s case is applicable prospectively or retrospectively? )

    (Court considered the answer of this question as OBITER DICTA)

    Answers to the said questions:

    Objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be raised at the time of marking of the
    document as an exhibit and not later. Thus, Objection regarding the certificate for electronic records
    under Section 65 B (4) of evidence Act.come under Mode of Proof which cannot be raised at later stage
    once it has not been raised in trail court.

    WHY THIS JUDGEMENT IS RELEVANT: SC in PV Anvar’s case held that an electronic record is inadmissible
    in evidence without the certification as provided therein. Navjot Sandhu’s case which took the opposite
    view was overruled in PV anwar’s case. However, this Judgement has provided that if objections
    regarding the certificate has not been raised in trail, the benefit of it cannot be given in appellant stage.
    It means in Appellant stage, the objections regarding the certificate under Section 65 B (4) cannot be
    raised.

    Court further Held: Court also dealt with the aspect of PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING. Though General rule
    is that judgement of the court are Generally retrospective in nature unless the judicial tool of
    ‘prospective overruling’ is applied. But if PV anwar’s case is applied retrospectively, it would affect the
    administration of justice even if this Court did not apply the principle of prospective overruling in
    Anvar’s case. Thouhg court merely considered as OBITER DICTA and not RATIO DECIDENDI of the
    judgement.

    You might also like