Mandatory Certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act Must Be Contemporaneous with Electronic Record Creation

The appellant, a Patwari in the Colonisation Department, was convicted by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹3,500 from the complainant (PW-5) for issuing a Jamabandi and land passbook.

The prosecution relied on trap proceedings conducted on 17.04.2012, involving voice recordings and recovery of tainted currency.

During the trial, the complainant turned hostile, denying the demand and payment.

Crucially, the prosecution submitted the mandatory Section 65B Evidence Act certificate for the electronic recordings only on 30.05.2018—over six years after the incident—while the witness (PW-12) was being examined.

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which require proof of demand and acceptance of "undue advantage".

It relied on Banarasi Das v. State of Haryana [(2010) 4 SCC 450] and N. Sunkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2016) 1 SCC 713], establishing that demand is a sine qua non and cannot be proved by mere recovery of money.

Regarding electronic evidence, the Court adhered to the mandatory certification requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as interpreted in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer [(2014) 10 SCC 473] and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [(2020) 7 SCC 1], which hold that such certification is a non-negotiable condition precedent for admissibility.

The Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed as the complainant denied the demand, and the accompanying witness (PW-4) failed to corroborate it.

The Court observed that the appellant, being in the Colonisation Department, had no authority over Revenue Department tasks like Jamabandi, and evidence showed the documents were already issued prior to the FIR, negating any motive.

Regarding the electronic records, the Court rejected the Section 65B certificate produced after six years, characterizing it as a "hollow and perfunctory formality" created to fill a lacuna during trial.

The Court reasoned that a "responsible official" under Section 65B must furnish a contemporaneous certificate to ensure the integrity of the data; a certificate issued years later by an officer no longer in the same post lacks legal sanctity.

Without the recordings, the prosecution had only hearsay evidence to prove the demand.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 21.05.2022, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

The Court issued a directive to the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau to ensure that Section 65B certificates (or Section 63 BSA certificates) are prepared contemporaneously with recordings to prevent such technical failures in future investigations.