Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dwarika Prasad Gole vs Sobran Singh on 4 March, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. PETITION No. 5653 of 2022
DWARIKA PRASAD GOLE AND OTHERS
Versus
SOBRAN SINGH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel and Smt. Meena Singhal,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ram Vilas Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 24/02/2025
Delivered on : 04/03/2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
comiing on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is preferred by the claimants challenging the order dated
20.10.2022 passed by Member of First Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in claim case No.275/2017(Dwarika Prasad
Vs. Sobran Singh & Ors.), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the
2
application filed by the petitioners for calling the original record of the
cover note No.175362 and 475362 filed by the respondent No.2
Insurance company, which contained the photo copies of the cover
note/insurance policy etc. The petitioners are further aggrieved by the
order, whereby the application preferred by the respondent No.2 for
getting the attested copies of the insurance policy and premium
collection receipt exhibited by the witness of the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company, was allowed.
2. Short facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the
petitioners for death of wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of
petitioners No. 2 to 5, who due to injuries sustained in the motor
vehicle accident on 11.09.2015 during treatment succumbed to the
injuries and had died.
3. A dehati nalishi was recorded by Police Station Gohad
Chauraha at the instance of petitioner No.2-Roop Singh and thereafter
police had lodged formal first information report vide Crime
No.223/2015 under Section 279, 337 of IPC and later on Section 304-
A of IPC was added. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the
police before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohad District
Bhind.
3
4. For claiming compensation the petitioners moved a claim
petition under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which was registered as claim
case No.275/2015. On 17.10.2022 an application under Section 169 of
the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the petitioners, in which it was
prayed that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company has filed the
copies of cover note 175362 and 475362 but the original copies of the
said cover notes or the Insurance Policies and other insurance related
documents had not been filed and in absence of the originals the photo
copies cannot be taken on record, therefore, respondent
No.2/Insurance Company be directed to produce the original record.
5. On the same date i.e. 17.10.2022 respondent No.2/Insurance
Company also filed an application under Section 169 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, in which it was prayed that the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company may be allowed to bring on record the
attested copies of the insurance policy and premium collection receipt
in the evidence of its witness and get them exhibited. Reply and
counter reply to the aforesaid applications were filed by the parties and
after due consideration the learned Tribunal dismissed the application
preferred by the petitioners and allowed that of respondent
No.2/Insurance Company, thus, aggrieved the present petition has
4
been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance in the
matter of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others reported in
(2014)10 SCC 473; has argued before this Court that any documentary
evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in
view of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in accordance with
the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B and Section 65-B deals
with the admissibility of the electronic records and the documents,
which were brought on record by respondent No.2 were electronically
taken out from a computer.
7. It was further argued that the purpose of these provisions is to
sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a
computer and as the said Section starts with a non obstante clause,
“notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act“, any
information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a
paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media
produced by a computer can be deemed to be a document only if the
conditions mentioned under sub- Section (2) are satisfied, without
further proof or production of the original. Thus, the very admissibility
of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer
5
output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions contained
under Section 65B(2), which are – (a) The electronic record containing
the information should have been produced by the computer during
the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process
information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over
that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that
computer; (b) The information of the kind contained in electronic
record or of the kind from which the information is derived was
regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said
activity; (c) During the material part of the said period, the computer
was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly
for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or
the accuracy of its contents; and (d) The information contained in the
record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed
into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity. Thus,
under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a
statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is
permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied like there
must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing
the statement, the certificate must describe the manner in which the
6
electronic record was produced, the certificate must furnish the
particulars of the device involved in the production of that record, the
certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under
Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act and the certificate must be signed
by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the
operation of the relevant device.
8. It was lastly argued that only if the electronic record is duly
produced in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, the question as
to its genuineness would arise thereof, thus, for the basic proof of a
document for its admissibility would be that procedure under Section
65-B has to be followed, which in the present since has not been
followed which makes the impugned order vulnerable and, therefore,
makes it liable to be quashed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had
supported the impugned order and had submitted that as and when the
photocopy of cover note, which was provided to the company was got
verified, it was found that the said cover note was a forged and
fabricated document and it was not issued for the vehicle in question
rather was issued for a two wheeler, though it was candidly admitted
that the copies of cover note and premium collection receipts were
7
neither original nor the carbon copies but were issued from an
electronic device and has been endorsed by competent authority,
therefore, taking those documents on record and marking them exhibit
cannot be denied. It was, thus, prayed that the present petition being
devoid of any merits be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The judgement cited by the counsel for the petitioners in the
matter of Anvar P.V. (Supra) came to be discussed by three Judges
Bench of Apex Court in the matter of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs.
Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal and others reported in AIR Online
2020 SC 641, where in its light Division Bench judgement of Shafhi
Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2018)2
SCC 801; was sent for reconsideration before larger Bench. While
discussing the aforesaid judgment in the matter of Anvar P.V. (Supra),
the reference was answered by stating that:-
72. The reference is thus answered by stating that:
(a) Anvar P.V. (Supra), as clarified by us hereinabove, is the
law declared by this Court on Section 65B of the Evidence
Act. The judgment in Tomaso Bruno (supra), being per
incuriam, does not lay down the law correctly. Also, the
judgment in SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported as Shafhi
Mohammad (supra) and the judgment dated 03.04.2018
reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311, do not lay down the law
correctly and are therefore overruled.
(b) The clarification referred to above is that the required
8certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original
document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of
a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone,
by stepping into the witness box and proving that the
concerned device, on which the original information is first
stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the
“computer” happens to be a part of a “computer system” or
“computer network” and it becomes impossible to physically
bring such system or network to the Court, then the only
means of providing information contained in such electronic
record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together
with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4). The last
sentence in Anvar P.V. (Supra), which reads as “…if an
electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under
Section 62 the Evidence Act…” is thus clarified; it is to be
read without the words “under Section 62 the Evidence Act,
…” With this clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of
Anvar P.V. (Supra), does not need to be revisited.
(c) The general directions issued in paragraph 62 (supra)
shall hereafter be followed by courts that deal with electronic
evidence, to ensure their preservation, and production of
certificate at the appropriate stage. These directions shall
apply in all proceedings, till rules and directions under
Section 67C of the Information Technology Act and data
retention conditions are formulated for compliance by
telecom and internet service providers.
(d) Appropriate rules and directions should be framed in
exercise of the Information Technology Act, by exercising
powers such as in Section 67C, and also framing suitable
rules for the retention of data involved in trial of offences,
their segregation, rules of chain of custody, stamping and
record maintenance, for the entire duration of trials and
appeals, and also in regard to preservation of the meta data
to avoid corruption. Likewise, appropriate rules for
preservation, retrieval and production of electronic record,
should be framed as indicated earlier, after considering the
report of the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice’s
Conference in April, 2016.
12. In the aforesaid judgment it was held that Anvar P.V. (supra), as
clarified was the law declared by the Apex Court under Section 65-B
of the Evidence Act and the judgment in the matter of Shafhi
9
Mohammad (supra) was held to not lay down the law correctly and
was, therefore, overruled.
13. While concluding the Apex Court has held that in cases where
the “computer” happens to be a part of a “computer system” or
“computer network” and becomes impossible to physically bring such
system or network to the Court, then the only means of providing
information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance
with Section 65B(1), together with a requisite certificate under Section
65B(4). The last sentence Anvar P.V. (Supra), which reads as “…if an
electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62
of the Evidence Act…” was clarified that it is to be read without the
words “under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,…”, which goes to show
that the directions issued in Anvar P.V. (Supra) shall apply to all
proceedings including the present one. Thus, when any documentary
evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in
view of Sections 59 and 65-A is produced, can be proved only in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B, which
deals with the admissibility of the electronic record and any
information contained in an electronic record produced by a computer
shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned
10
under sub-section (2) of Section 65 (B) are satisfied, which in the
present case appears to have not been satisfied. Thus, the impugned
order so far as allowing of the application preferred by the Insurance
Company for exhibiting the document obtained electronically from a
computer appears to be not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is
hereby set aside.
14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in the above terms
and disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
SHAS
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec
09e066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1
cf27eaa2ce, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500
HANK
EAADE1E0B3B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD04
8197DF0FF3149AE58, cn=NEETU
SHASHANK
Date: 2025.03.04 17:33:04 +05’30’
[ad_1]
Source link