SUBJECT:

Evidence Law

SUBMITTED TO:

Chanchana Elsa Phillip

SUBMITTED BY:

Vaishnavi Krupakaran

B.B.A.LL.B (Hons)

CMR University

Semester IX

17BBLB054

Component – Case comment

Case Name - Anavar Pv V. Pk Basheer (2014)

SUBMISSION DATE:

7th December 2021

.
1 NAME OF THE CASE Anvar P.K v. P.V. Basheer
2 CITATION (AIR 2015 SC 180)
[(2005) 11 SCC 6000]

3 POINT OF LAW 22-A, 45-A, 59, 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence
Act.
4 PETITIONER Anvar P.K.
5 RESPONDENT P.V. Basheer
6 BENCH R.M. Lodha, C.J.I., Kurian Joseph and Rohinton
Fali Nariman
7 PRECEDENT CASE WHICH State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias
OVERRULED THE CASE Afsan Guru
Widely known as the” Parliament Attack case “,
which proved that a record of the cell phone is a
valid admissible evidence if there is no elementary
digital data

Abstract

The court upheld that in this case , the appointment of the respondent couldn't be saved as the
appeal brought under the steady gaze of the Court has not merit. The case was excused on the
ground that the satisfaction of the necessities of section 65B is fundamental for the suitability
of the electronic proof. The electronic proof given by the appellant doesn't satisfy those
necessities.

Introduction

This is a very important judgement, there were many disputes and controversies . The
practises followed in High Court and Trial Court with respect to admissibility of electronic
evidence is also questioned . The Sections 22A , 45A, 59, 65A & 65B as interpreted by the
court . The data collected from secondary sources like CD/DVD/Pen drive will be deemed
inadmissible without a certificate as under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act .
This case cleared the concept that electronic evidence not subsided by a certificate under 65B
can be a stronger evidence than opinion proved by oral evidence . The Section 45 of the
Evidence Act cannot make such electronic evidence admissible.

Facts of the case

This case identifies with the election held to the voting public of Eranad Legislative
Assembly. In this election , the respondent who was upheld by the United Democratic Front
had won. The appellant who was challenging decisions by himself and was upheld by the
Left had won the second place in vote count . But, the appellant had filed an election
petition to proclaim that the desired candidate was the appellant for the Eranad Legislative
Assembly and to save the appointment of the respondent. This election appeal looked for this
affirmation under sections 100(1)(b), 123(2)(ii) and 123(4) of the Representation of Peoples
Act. The High Court of Kerala, notwithstanding, dismissed this election committe's decision
appeal as the charges couldn't be demonstrated without question. Subsequently, this appeal
got filed under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court of India.

Issue

Whether the respondent’s election to the Eranad Legislative Assembly could be set aside?
Whether the electronic evidence provided by the appellant is admissible under the Indian
Evidence Act?

Whether the High Court was right in rejecting the election petition?

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant's arguments were as per the following: The election of the respondent to the
Eranad Legislative Assembly is void under section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of People
Act. The respondent had were involved in corrupt actions . The respondent is likewise
obligated under sections 123(2)(iii) and 123(4) of the Representation of People Act because
of the printing of Annexure An in the election exposures.

Respondent's arguments

The respondent argued as follows : His election to the Eranad Legislative Assembly isn't
void under section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of People Act. The electronic proof put
together by the appellant doesn't satisfy the necessities of section 65A and 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act. He just had some awareness of the Annexure and didn't give assent for its
printing and that there could have been no appropriate proof to demonstrate that he did. There
could be no appropriate proof to demonstrate that he was involved in degenerate practices.

Judgment

High Court

The High Court held that the election petition filed for having been involved in corrupt
practices , it could not be ascertained and it did not meet the criteria as per Section 100(1)
(b) of the Representation of People's Act , 1951 .This judgement awarded by the Petitioner
did not satisfy the Petitioner , hence the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court Supreme
Court

1. It was held that electronic records are more vulnerable to altering, change, rendering,
extraction, and so forth, so without shields taken to guarantee the source proves its
authenticity and original source , the entire preliminary trail on confirmation of electronic
records can lead to miscarriage of justice. Section 65B of the Evidence Act being a 'not
obstinate condition' would abrogate the law on optional proof under Section 63 and 65 of the
Evidence Act. The section 63 and section 65 of the Evidence Act have no application to the
optional proof of the electronic proof and same will be entirely represented by the Section
65A and 65B of the Evidence Act.

2. It was likewise held in previously mentioned point of reference that the evidence
identifying with electronic record, being an exceptional arrangement, the overall law on
auxiliary proof under Section 63 read with Section 65 of The Indian Evidence Act will
respect be same; Generalia specialibus non derogant, unique law will consistently beat the
overall law.

3. Further held that the Evidence Act doesn't consider or allow the verification of an
electronic record by oral proof assuming prerequisites under Section 65B of The Evidence
Act are not followed.

4. Going ahead it was held in aforementioned point of reference that under Section 65B
(4) of the Evidence Act, assuming it is wanted to give an assertion in any procedures relating
to an electronic record, it is reasonable provided that every one of the conditions gave under
section 65B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act is satisfied.
5. It was additionally held that on account of CD, VCD, chip, and so on, the equivalent
will be went with the authentication as far as Section 65B of The Indian Evidence Act got at
the hour of taking of archive, without which, the optional proof relating to that electronic
record, is forbidden.

Critical analysis

The admissibility of the optional electronic proof must be declared inside the boundaries of
Section 65B of Evidence Act and the suggestion of the law got settled ,the new judgment of
the Supreme Court and the High Courts as talked above. The recommendation is clear and
unequivocal that assuming the secondary electronic proof is without a declaration u/s 65B of
Evidence Act, it isn't allowable and any assessment of the scientific master and the testimony
of the observer in the official courtroom can't be investigated by the court. Nonetheless, there
are not many holes which are as yet unsettled as what might be the destiny of the secondary
electronic proof seized from the blamed wherein, the declaration u/s 65B of Evidence Act
can't be taken and the denounced can't be made witness against himself as it would be
adversely violate of the Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion

Although the good intention of the courts have been highlighted in this case , but according to
my opinion the Supreme Court has made a grave error by misstating the judgement of the
Case of Anvar . The court expected severe rigidity in the application of the Section 65B.As
our laws are very similar to England we too should incorporate a less rigid in cases of
inadmissibility of the evidence. The India Parliament should realize this and rationalize the
conditions for admissibility of evidence .Till the government does not take all these steps the
unnecessary stringency is going to remain like in the case of Anvar .

Reference

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/anavar-pv-v-pk-basheer-2014-admissibility-of-
electronic-evidence-5042.asp

https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/tag/anvar-p-v-vs-p-k-basheer/

https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2017/08/25/pv-anvar-v-pk-basheer-a-critique/

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187283766/
https://cyberblogindia.in/anvar-p-v-v-p-k-basheer-ors/