Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

PART I – Sec. 65B ON FIRST PRINCIPLES.

• Note: Analysis of the author and the law rendered by the Supreme Court of India are given.

Point No. 1

What is brought about by Section 65B, Evidence Act?

1. It enables a litigant to prove computer output (secondary evidence)
   • ‘without further proof or production of electronic record’ (original), and
   • by producing a ‘certificate’ (as provided in this Section.
2. Presumption is provided as to the correctness of the computer output (copy or print out) under Sec. 65B(5)(c).

Sec. 65B deals with ‘Computer Output’ (copy) and not ‘Electronic Record’ (original) as authoritatively pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

• Sec. 65B is invoked only when a ‘computer output’ (copy) is used in evidence; and it does not pertain to use of (original) ‘electronic record‘ as evidence in court.
• Relevant portions of Sec. 65B read as under:
  • Sec. 65B. Admissibility of electronic records:
    • (1) … any information contained in an electronic record which is PRINTED ….. or COPIED ….. (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be admissible ….. as evidence of any contents of the original ….”
• Supreme Court (Anver PV v. PK Basheer, 2014-10 SCC 473) held as under:
• “24. …… If an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.”
• This observation is followed in Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, (2020)3 SCC 216)

Point No. 2A.

Non-obstante clause (‘Notwithstanding Anything’) in Sec. 65B – Not exclude Sec. 65. (Note – Contra view by Supreme Court)

• What is enabled by the non-obstante clause is – a copy or printout of electronic evidence ‘shall be deemed to be also a document’.
• ‘Notwithstanding-clause’ in Sec. 65B keeps all other sections in the Evidence Act undisturbed; and it provides for an additional enabling provision – without disabling the force of existing provisions to prove the copy or printout of electronic evidence. Therefore, the copy or printout can be proved under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act.
• Relevant portions of Sec. 65A and Sec. 65B read as under:
  • Sec. 65A: Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record:
    • The contents of electronic records MAY BE proved in accordance with the provisions of section 65B. 
  • Sec. 65B: Admissibility of electronic records:
    • (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information … which is printed …… or copied …….. shall be Deemed to be ALSO a Document …
• Supreme Court (Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao) held as under –
• “31. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf – Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this purpose. …...”
• “34. …. in Anvar P.V. (supra) … this Court made it clear …… and also that a written certificate under Section 65B(4) is a sine qua non for admissibility of such evidence ……“

Point No. 2B.

Sec. 65B deals with ‘Admissibility’ (alone) of a Computer Output/Copy. If ‘truth’ is in question, it must be proved according to other provisions of the Evidence Act. (Note – Contra view by Supreme Court)

• Sec. 65B does not deal with ‘truth’ of the contents of the electronic record; it deals with ‘admissibility of copy’ alone.
• The electronic record mentioned in Sec. 65B is – that which is ‘relevant‘; for, it must be one “of which direct evidence would be admissible”.
• For, Sec. 65B deals with ‘admissibility of copy’ alone, if truth is in question, it must be proved according to other provisions of the evidence act; ie. by oral, documentary or presumptive evidence.

See Blog (Click): Admissibility of Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)

• Relevant portions of 65A & 65B read as under:
  • Sec. 65A: Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record:
    • The contents of electronic records MAY BE proved in accordance with the provisions of section 65B. 
  • Sec. 65B: Admissibility of electronic records:
    • (1) … any information contained in an electronic record which is printed ….. or copied ….. shall be ADMISSIBLE in any proceedings ….. as evidence of any contents of the original … of which direct evidence would be admissible.”
• Supreme Court (Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, (2020)3 SCC 216, held as under –
• “31. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf – Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this purpose. …...”
• “34. …. in Anvar P.V. (supra) … this Court made it clear that the special provisions of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act are a complete Code in themselves …… “

Point No. 2C.

Sec. 65B does NOT bar proving copy (by) invoking Sec. 65; Sec. 65B is an enabling provision that enables to prove copy otherwise than (by) laying the foundation or conditions laid down in Sec. 65 (such as loss of original). (Note – Contra view by Supreme Court)

• Sec. 65B is an added and enabling provision to prove the copy or printout – otherwise than proving the conditions laid down in Sec. 65 (such as loss of original, original with other side).
• By the deeming provision (fiction) in Sec. 65B, a ‘copy’ is raised to the states of a (original) document.
• Relevant portion of Sec. 65B reads as under:
  • Sec. 65B: Admissibility of electronic records:
    • (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information … which is printed …… or copied …….. shall be Deemed to be ALSO a Document ….
• Supreme Court (Arjun Panditrao), held as under –
• “35. …….. Hence, the declaration of law in Tomaso Bruno (supra) following Navjot Sandhu (supra) that secondary evidence of the contents of a document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to make CCTV footage admissible would be in the teeth of Anvar P.V., (supra) and CANNOT be said to be a correct statement of the law. The said view is accordingly overruled.”

Point No. 3A.

‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be PROVED by ‘Certificate’ under S. 65B(4). (Note – Contra view by Supreme Court)

• The ‘statements‘ (such as bank account statements) alone can be PROVED in evidence under S. 65B, through a ‘certificate’ provided under Sec. 65B(4). It is clear from a simple reading of 65B(4). 
• Sec. 65B(2) conditions are to be satisfied for ADMISSIBILITY; and not proof. But, it appears that Sec. 65B(4) which takes care of ‘statements‘, deals with authenticity or proof of truth, also;
  • because, it is laid down
  • (i) that the certificate “shall be EVIDENCE (proof?) of any(?) matter stated” therein, and
  • (ii) that, for the purposes of this sub-section, “it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.”

Sec. 65B(4) reads:

• “(4) In any proceedings where it is DESIRED TO GIVE a STATEMENT  in evidence, by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—
  • (a) identifying the electronic record CONTAINING the STATEMENT and describing the manner in which it was produced;
  • (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
  • (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be EVIDENCE of any matter stated in the certificate;
• and for the purposes of this sub-section
• it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.”

See Blog: ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B

Supreme Court (Arjun Panditrao) held as under –

• “59. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of ELECTRONIC RECORD…. . “

Point No. 3C.

Conditions in S. 65B(2) are to be satisfied through oral evidence or affidavit, (except for ‘Statements’). (Note – Contra view by Supreme Court)

• The computer output (copy) containing the information, such as CCTV footage, photo or video in a CD, can be admitted in evidence under S. 65B if only the conditions mentioned in S. 65B(2)  (such as: computer was used regularly, information was regularly fed in the ordinary course, computer was operating properly) are satisfied, through oral evidence or affidavit. Only exception is to “statements”.

Relevant portions of Sec. 65B read as under:

• Sec. 65B: Admissibility of Electronic Records:
• (1) …. (computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the CONDITIONS mentioned in this section are SATISFIED ….. without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein (Isn’t “or of any fact stated therein” surpussage?) ……
• (2) The conditions ….. shall be the following, namely:—
  • (a) …. the computer was used regularly to store … information for the purposes (?) of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
  • (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which ….. information …… was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities (Isn’t the words “during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which” a surplusage?);
  • (c) throughout the material part …. the computer was operating properly ……; and
  • (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (Isn’t the words “or is derived from such information fed into the computer” a surplusage – especially in view of the wordings of clause (b)?)

• Supreme Court (Arjun Panditrao) held as under –
• “59. ….. Oral evidence in the place of such certificate CANNOT possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. … Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose.”

Point No. 4

Photo or video captured in a mobile phone, ‘trap-video’, CCTV footage, etc. cannot be used under Sec. 65B. (Note – Contra view by Supreme Court)

• It is clear that the computer output (copy) is ‘deemed to be (also) a document’ if only the conditions mentioned in S. 65B(2) are fulfilled, that is:
  • S. 65B(2)(a) computer was USED REGULARLY to STORE or process information
    • of the activities REGULARLY CARRIED ON
    • BY THE PERSON having lawful control,
  • S. 65B(2)(b) information was REGULARLY FED
    • in the ORDINARY COURSE,
  • S. 65B(2)(d) the information is REPRODUCED in the
    • ORDINARY COURSE of the SAID ACTIVITIES.
  • (For example – Computer Account statements in a Bank.)
• For all other computer outputs (copy of, photo or video captured in a mobile phone, ‘trap-video’, CCTV footage, etc.), one has to resort other provisions of the Evidence Act, by producing the original or by producing the copy after satisfying the circumstances under Sec. 65.
  • See Blog: Admissibility of Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Therefore, it is beyond any doubt that the following computer output (copy) cannot be used under Sec. 65B:
  • CCTV footage –
    • (i) not used to store or process information BY any PERSON [65B(2)(a)] and
    • (ii) not reproduced in the ordinary course [65B(2)(d)] .
  • CDs containing speech –
  • Videograph of the scene of crime
  • trap-video –
    • (i) not used REGULARLY to store or process information [65B(2)(a)],
    • (ii) not regularly fed in the ordinary course [65B(2)(b)] and
    • (iii) not reproduced in the ordinary course [65B(2)(d)].

• But, the Supreme Court dealt with CCTV footage in the following landmark cases:
  • State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600,
  • Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP, (2015-7 SCC 178),
• CDs/VCDs in respect of video recording by the Election Commission
  • Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, (2020)3 SCC 216
• CDs containing election speeches and songs in:
  • Anvar PV v. PK Basheer, (2014-10 SCC 473).
• Call Detail Records – CDR – of mobile phones in:
  • Sonu v. State of Haryana (2017-8 SCC 570)
• Tape recorded conversation on the landline phone
  • Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017-8 SCC 518
• Propriety of videography of the scene of crime or scene of recovery during investigation, in:
  • Shafhi Muhammed v. State of HP, (2018-2 SCC 801 ).

See Blog: How to Prove WhatsApp Chats, Facebook Messages and Website Information in Courts?

Point No. 5.

Should the ‘Correctness’ of Copy or Print-out Must be Proved?

No.

S. 65B(5)(c) lays down a presumption as to correctness (not truth) of the computer out-put; because,  S. 65B(5)(c) lays down-

• ‘a computer out-put shall be taken to have been produced by a computer’. 

Sec. 65B(5)(c) reads:

• S. 65B(5)(c) lays down a presumption as to correctness (not truth) of the computer out-put, inasmuch as S. 65B(5)(c) lays down that ‘a computer out-put shall be taken to have been produced by a computer’. 
• Sec. 65B(5)(c) reads:
  • ‘a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment’.

Mere marking– not dispense with proof (of truth of contents): See Blog: EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION

PART II

Admissibility and Presumption as to correctness of Computer Output

Sec. 65B declares and expressly lays down that computer output (copy or print)

• (i) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and
• (ii) shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence
  • of any contents of the original or
  • of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

If the conditions mentioned in this Section Sec. 65B(2) are satisfied, by necessary implication, it will bring a presumption under Sec. 114 with respect to regularity of the computer output . Because, admissibility of ‘any fact stated therein‘ ‘without further proof’ is nothing but ‘presumption’ of its regularity and correctness. The net result is that (if the conditions in Sec. 65B(2) are satisfied) the burden to prove otherwise is cast on the person who opposes it.

The requirement in Sec. 65B(2) as to ‘proof’ (through witnesses or certificate) for ‘regularity‘ of feeding information into the computer in the ‘ordinary course‘ eloquently support this proposition.

• Note:
  • (i) ‘Statements’ alone can be proved by ‘certificate’ under Sec. 65B(4); other ‘information’ are to be proved by proper evidence.
  • (ii) Presumption of ‘regularity’ under Sec. 114 Evd. Act can be applied in Sec. 65B.
  • (iii) Presumption of a ‘fact or regularity’ under Sec. 114 Evd. Act is, essentially presumption of ‘Truth’ and ‘Correctness’.

Presumption of Fact Means Truth/Correctness of Fact

St. of West Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar (AIR 2000 SC 2988) it is held by our Apex Court as under:

• “Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.”
• (See: Blog: EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION)

Section 65B is a borrowed provision

Section 65B is brought to Indian law from Section 5 of the UK Civil Evidence Act, 1968. It remains a sheer fact that by the time we borrowed this provision (2000) from the UK law, they repealed (1995) it. (It is pointed out in Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, (2020) 3 SCC 216.)

The present UK Act (Civil Evidence Act 1995) does not make any special provision for Electronic Evidence or Computerised Records. It deals this matter under the head ‘hearsay evidence’ and makes ‘safeguards’ with respect to the hearsay evidence.

Who can give Certificate under Sec. 65 B

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020)3 SCC 216 makes it clear-

• The certificate can be given by anyone out of several persons who occupy a ‘responsible official position’ in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
• The person who may otherwise be in the ‘management of relevant activities’ spoken of in Sub-section (4) of Section 65B. (It is provided to give the certificate to the “best of his knowledge and belief”.) See also – Smriti Madan Kansagra Vs. Perry Kansagra 2020-12 SCALE 450.

Can the Certificate u/s 65B be Given Long After the Electronic Record was Produced

• In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020)3 SCC 216 it was held that by virtue of Section 65B(4), the Certificate u/s 65B can be given long after the electronic record has actually been produced by the computer. (Note: the certificate to be given is to the “best of his knowledge and belief”.) See also – Smriti Madan Kansagra Vs. Perry Kansagra 2020-12 SCALE 450.

PART III – LANDMARK DECISIONS

1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600,  two- judge bench decision (on CCTV footage). It is held:
   • “Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65.”
2. Anvar PV v. PK Basheer, (2014-10 SCC 473), three- judge bench decision (on CDs containing election speeches). It is held:
   • “That (Sections 65A & 65B) is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield.”
   • But finally held: “It is clarified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence of electronic record with reference to Sections 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.”
3. Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP, (2015-7 SCC 178), three-bench decision (on CCTV footage).
   • It is held, as to make CCTV footage admissible, as under:
   • “Secondary evidence of contents of document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act”.
4. Sonu v. State of Haryana (2017-8 SCC 570): two- judge bench decision (on Call Detail Records – CDRs – of mobile phones). It is held:
   • “The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Applying this test to the present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the court could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency.”
5. Shafhi Muhammed v. State of HP, (2018-2 SCC 801 ), two- judge bench decision (on videography of the scene of crime). Tomaso Bruno (2015) was followed in. It was held as under:
   • “(11) The applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked. If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing cannot possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate under Section 65B(h) [sic-65B(4)] is not always mandatory.
   • (12) Accordingly, we clarify the legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced. Such party cannot be required to produce certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies.”
6. Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, (2020)3 SCC 216, three-judge bench decision (on CCTV footage). It substantially followed PV Anwar (2014) with a ‘clarification’.
   • Because it is held in Anver PV v. PK Basheer that Section 62, 63 and 65 are not applied for electronic evidence – for Sec. 65A & B are ‘complete code’ – the further observation that ‘if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62’ stood incongruent and contradictory. Therefore, it is ‘clarified’ and directed to ‘read’ Anver “without the words – ‘under Section 62 of the Evidence Act’ “.
   • “59. We may reiterate, therefore, that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice as Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement of the law. … Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act clearly states that secondary evidence is admissible only if lead in the manner stated and not otherwise. To hold otherwise would render Section 65B(4) otiose.”
   • In Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao it is found – Tomaso Bruno v. State of UP is per-incurium as under:
   • “What is clear from this judgment (Tomaso Bruno) is that the judgment of Anvar P. V. (supra) was not referred to at all. In fact, the judgment in State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 was adverted to, which was a judgment specifically overruled by Anvar P. V. (supra). It may also be stated that Section 65B(4) was also not at all adverted to by this judgment. Hence, the declaration of law in Tomaso Bruno (supra) following Navjot Sandhu (supra) that secondary evidence of the contents of a document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to make CCTV footage admissible would be in the teeth of Anvar P. V., (supra) and cannot be said to be a correct statement of the law. The said view is accordingly overruled.”

PART IV

Presumptions Incorporated in Evidence Act While Introducing Sec. 65 A and 65 B

• Sec. 81A. Presumption as to Gazettes in electronic forms
• The Court shall presume the genuineness of every electronic record purporting to be the Official Gazette or purporting to be electronic record directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such electronic record is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody
• 85A Presumption as to electronic agreements
• The Court shall presume that every electronic record purporting to be an agreement containing the electronic signature of the parties was so concluded by affixing the electronic signature of the parties.
• 85B Presumption as to electronic records and electronic signatures
• (1) In any proceedings involving a secure electronic record, the Court shall presume unless contrary is proved, that the secure electronic record has not been altered since the specific point of time to which the secure status relates.
• (2) In any proceedings, involving secure electronic signature, the Court shall presume unless the contrary is proved that—
• (a) the secure electronic signature is affixed by subscriber with the intention of signing or approving the electronic record;
• (b) except in the case of a secure electronic record or a secure electronic signature, nothing in this section shall create any presumption, relating to authenticity and integrity of the electronic record or any electronic signature.
• 85C Presumption as to Electronic Signature Certificates
• The Court shall presume, unless contrary is proved, that the information listed in a 86 Electronic Signature Certificate is correct, except for information specified as subscriber information which has not been verified, if the certificate was accepted by the subscriber.
• 88A. Presumption as to electronic messages
• The Court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed into his computer for transmission; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.
• “Explanation: For the purposes of this section, the expressions “addressee” and “originator” shall have the same meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses (b) and (za) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

End Note:

Sec. 65A and Sec. 65B of the Evidence Act read:

• Sec. 65A: Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record:
  • The CONTENTS of electronic records may be PROVED in accordance with the provisions of section 65B. 
• Sec. 65B. Admissibility of electronic records:
• (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this 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 (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
• (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:—
  • (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
  • (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
  • (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
  • (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
• (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether—
  • (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
  • (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
  • (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
  • (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
• (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—
  • (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
  • (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
  • (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate)
    • shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate;
  • and for the purposes of this sub-section
  • it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
• (5) For the purposes of this section,—
  • (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
  • (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
  • (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.
• Explanation.—For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.