Question

The Supreme Court judgment excerpted above held that compliance with Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admitting secondary evidence of electronic records is:

• A. Mandatory as held in the case of Anvar v. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473
• B. Discretionary upon the trial court judge to insist or waive the requirement
• C. To be read together with the mode of proof of non-electronic documents under Sections 62-65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• D. None of the above
• A. Admitting the document, marking the document, authenticating the document
• B. Authenticating the document, receiving evidence of its contents, marking the document
• C. Proving the contents of the document, authenticating the document, marking the document
• D. Marking the document, authenticating the document, receiving the document as evidence
• A. The act of authentication of a document
• B. The act of proving contents of a document
• C. The act of corroborating the evidence of a document
• D. The act of solving the problem of hearsay associated with documents
• A. Cannot be admitted
• B. Generally cannot be admitted except when accepted as admissible secondary evidence under Section 65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• C. Generally can be admitted except when barred by the rule against hearsay
• D. Generally can be admitted except when considered unreliable due to impeachment of the witness
• A. Never admit such evidence
• B. May only admit such evidence where it is satisfied that procuring such a certificate for the party adducing the document into evidence would result in unfair prejudice, and where the document is crucial evidence
• C. May admit such evidence if satisfied that the party adducing such evidence was unable to procure the certificate despite best efforts and that it was impossible for them to do so
• D. Admit such evidence after a scrutiny of the fact it purports to prove, and only do so for the proof of relevant facts, and never for the proof of facts in issue as defined under Section 3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• A. An appellate court should declare the evidence inadmissible in line with the mandatory nature of Section 65B.
• B. An appellate court should remand the matter to trial declaring the said evidence inadmissible.
• C. An objection to the method of proof cannot be raised at the appellate stage as the original plaintiff cannot rectify the error.
• D. Since the respondent did not object to the admissibility of the evidence, the document is held to be proved.
• A. That in cases of criminal conspiracy, the method of proof of the conspiracy is controlled by Section 10, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and not Section 65B.
• B. That irrespective of compliance with Section 65B, contents of electronic documents could be proved through Sections 62-65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• C. That electronic documents being a special class of general documents, had to be proved through expert opinion under Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• D. That the document sought to be proved must first be marked and then admitted into evidence for its contents, and that this sequence may not be reversed.
• A. The judgment is against binding precedent of a higher court or larger bench.
• B. The judgment is against binding provisions of law applicable to the subject.
• C. Both (A) and (B)
• D. Neither (A) nor (B)
• A. Yes, since one of the attesting witnesses has not recalled the execution, any other evidence is now admissible to prove execution under Section 71, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• B. No, since there is another attesting witness who has not been summoned to court, that witness must be first examined under Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• C. No, since one attesting witness has denied the execution, no other evidence can prove the execution of the Will.
• D. Yes, since the scribe is a direct witness to the execution of the Will, and his evidence is admissible under Section 60, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• A. That the certificate must generally be produced at the time of production of documents, which would mean filing of the chargesheet in a criminal case.
• B. That the documents, if missing, or deficient, can be supplied at a later stage in the trial and the court can be asked to take them on record.
• C. That generally speaking, any application during trial to take additional documents on record must be examined as to not cause unfair prejudice to the accused.
• D. All the above

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct option is (A): Mandatory as held in the case of Anvar v. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.

Answer 2

This question is about Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash K. Gorantyal, where the Supreme Court revisited the requirements for proving electronic records under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Let's examine each option.

1. Mandatory, as held in Anvar v. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473: This is correct. The excerpt itself explains that the non-obstante clause makes clear that admissibility and proof of electronic records must follow the special procedure of Section 65B, with Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this purpose. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar affirmed and clarified this compliance requirement from Anvar v. Basheer, treating it as mandatory rather than optional, subject only to the narrow exception where the original device itself is produced in court.
2. Discretionary upon the trial court judge to insist or waive the requirement: This is incorrect. Nothing in the excerpt, or in the broader judgment, leaves it to a trial judge's discretion whether to insist on Section 65B compliance; the requirement is treated as a fixed condition for admissibility of secondary evidence of electronic records, not a matter of judicial discretion to relax.
3. To be read together with the mode of proof of non-electronic documents under Sections 62 to 65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This is incorrect. The excerpt specifically states the opposite, that Sections 62 to 65 are irrelevant for this purpose, precisely because the non-obstante clause carves out electronic records into their own special regime under Section 65B rather than folding them into the general document proof provisions.
4. None of the above: This is incorrect because the first option correctly captures the Court's holding.

The judgment treats Section 65B compliance as a mandatory, special procedure for electronic records, distinct from and not simply read together with the general provisions on documentary proof.

Therefore, the correct answer is Mandatory as held in the case of Anvar v. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.

Answer 3

The correct option is (D): Marking the document, authenticating the document, receiving the document as evidence.

Answer 4

This question asks for the correct sequence in which Indian evidence law generally requires documents to be proved. Let's test each proposed order.

1. Admitting the document, marking the document, authenticating the document: This gets the order wrong. A document cannot properly be admitted into evidence before it has even been marked and authenticated; admission, properly understood, is closer to the last step in the sequence, not the first.
2. Authenticating the document, receiving evidence of its contents, marking the document: This is also out of sequence. Marking a document, giving it an exhibit number for identification during proceedings, ordinarily happens before its contents are formally received as evidence, not after; putting marking last does not reflect how documents move through a trial.
3. Proving the contents of the document, authenticating the document, marking the document: This reverses the logical order entirely. A document's contents cannot be treated as proved before it is even authenticated as genuine or marked for identification, since proving contents is meant to be the outcome of the process, not its starting point.
4. Marking the document, authenticating the document, receiving the document as evidence: This is correct. The document is first marked for identification during the proceedings, then authenticated, meaning a witness establishes that it is genuinely what it is claimed to be, and only once authenticated is it received as evidence so that its contents can be relied upon to prove facts in the case.

Only this last sequence follows the logical progression from identifying a document, to establishing its genuineness, to finally allowing it to be used as evidence.

Therefore, the correct answer is Marking the document, authenticating the document, receiving the document as evidence.

Answer 5

The correct option is (A): The act of authentication of a document.

Answer 6

This question describes a witness who owns a device, such as a laptop or phone containing an electronic record, stepping into the witness box and testifying that the device belongs to them, so that the original document itself can be relied upon without needing a Section 65B(4) certificate. The question asks what this function is best understood as. Let's test each option.

1. The act of authentication of a document: This is correct. Authentication is the process of establishing that a document, or the device on which an electronic record is stored, genuinely is what it is claimed to be and belongs to or was operated by the person claimed. By testifying that the device belongs to them, the witness is establishing exactly this, the genuineness and ownership of the source of the record, which is the essence of authentication.
2. The act of proving contents of a document: This is incorrect, because proving contents is a separate step that comes after authentication. Testifying to ownership of the device does not, by itself, prove what information is actually contained in the record or that it is accurate; it only establishes whose device it is.
3. The act of corroborating the evidence of a document: This is also incorrect. Corroboration involves supporting evidence that already exists with additional, independent material; here, the witness is not adding supporting material to some other existing proof, but performing the foundational step of identifying the source device as genuinely theirs.
4. The act of solving the problem of hearsay associated with documents: This is incorrect as well. The hearsay problem concerns whether an out of court statement can be relied upon for the truth of its contents, a distinct evidentiary issue from establishing ownership of a device. Testifying to ownership addresses genuineness and authenticity, not the hearsay objection.

Testifying that a device belongs to the witness is squarely about establishing the genuineness of the source of the record, which is what authentication means.

Therefore, the correct answer is The act of authentication of a document.

Answer 7

The correct option is (B): Generally cannot be admitted except when accepted as admissible secondary evidence under Section 65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Answer 8

This question asks how the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 treats oral evidence given about the contents of documents. Let's assess each option.

1. Cannot be admitted: This is too absolute. The Act does not impose a blanket, exceptionless ban on oral evidence of a document's contents; it permits such oral evidence in defined circumstances, so a flat cannot be admitted overstates the rule.
2. Generally cannot be admitted, except when accepted as admissible secondary evidence under Section 65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This is correct. The Act's general rule is that documents must be proved by primary or, where permitted, secondary evidence, and Section 63 recognises oral accounts of the contents of a document, given by someone who has themselves seen it, as one recognised form of secondary evidence. But this route only opens up where the specific conditions in Section 65 for leading secondary evidence, such as the original being lost or destroyed, are actually satisfied.
3. Generally can be admitted, except when barred by the rule against hearsay: This is incorrect, because it gets the default position backwards. Oral evidence of a document's contents is not the default permitted route with hearsay as a rare exception; the default position is that documents must be proved through primary or secondary evidence rules, and oral evidence is admitted only when Section 65's specific conditions are met, not merely whenever hearsay does not apply.
4. Generally can be admitted, except when considered unreliable due to impeachment of the witness: This is also incorrect. Whether a witness's credibility has been impeached is a separate question from whether oral evidence of a document's contents is admissible at all in the first place; admissibility under the Act does not turn on the witness's credibility being challenged.

The Act's actual scheme keeps oral evidence of a document's contents as the exception, available only once the specific statutory conditions for secondary evidence under Section 65 are met, rather than as a generally open route.

Therefore, the correct answer is Generally cannot be admitted except when accepted as admissible secondary evidence under Section 65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Answer 9

The correct option is (C): May admit such evidence if satisfied that the party adducing such evidence was unable to procure the certificate despite best efforts and that it was impossible for them to do so.

Answer 10

The question is about what a court may do when primary evidence of an electronic record cannot be produced and the secondary copy has no accompanying Section 65B(4) certificate. Each option proposes a different rule; let's test them one at a time.

1. Never admit such evidence: This treats the certificate as an absolute precondition with no exceptions. That is too rigid. Courts have recognised that a certificate cannot always be obtained, for instance when the device belongs to a third party who will not cooperate, and an inflexible bar would let that third party defeat a genuine claim simply by refusing to sign a certificate.
2. Admit only where refusing would cause unfair prejudice and the document is crucial: This option invents a balancing test built around "prejudice" and "importance" of the document. Section 65B does not tie admissibility to how central the document is to the case; a minor document and a decisive one are held to the same certification standard. This option gets the test wrong.
3. Admit if the party was unable to procure the certificate despite best efforts and it was genuinely impossible: This mirrors the narrow exception carved out for cases where the certifying authority is outside the control of the party leading the evidence, and that party has made real, demonstrable efforts to get the certificate before being forced to proceed without it. The impossibility must be real, not a matter of convenience.
4. Admit after scrutiny, only to prove relevant facts and never facts in issue: The relevant fact and fact in issue distinction under Section 3 governs what a piece of evidence is offered to establish, not whether the mode of proving an electronic record can be relaxed. Nothing in Section 65B ties the certificate requirement to this classification, so this option is not the operative test.

Only the third option correctly states the narrow, effort and impossibility based exception that lets a court receive secondary electronic evidence without the certificate.

Therefore, the correct answer is May admit such evidence if satisfied that the party adducing such evidence was unable to procure the certificate despite best efforts and that it was impossible for them to do so.

Answer 11

The correct option is (C): An objection to the method of proof cannot be raised at the appellate stage as the original plaintiff cannot rectify the error..

Answer 12

This question asks how a court should treat a belated objection to the mode of proof of electronic evidence, raised for the first time on appeal, where the respondent stayed silent about Section 65B compliance at trial. Let's assess each option.

1. The appellate court should declare the evidence inadmissible in line with the mandatory nature of Section 65B: This ignores the distinction between the mandatory nature of the certificate requirement and the procedural rule that objections to the mode, as opposed to the substance, of proof must be raised when the evidence is tendered, so the other side has a chance to cure the defect. Raising it for the first time on appeal defeats that purpose.
2. The appellate court should remand the matter to trial declaring the evidence inadmissible: A remand presumes the objection was validly available on appeal in the first place. Since the objection to the mode of proof was never taken at trial, there is nothing left to remand on this ground.
3. An objection to the method of proof cannot be raised at the appellate stage since the party who tendered the evidence can no longer rectify the error: This tracks the actual rationale. An objection about the mode of proving a document, unlike an objection to its relevance, is a curable defect. If raised in time, the party could have supplied the missing certificate or led other evidence to prove the record. Letting the objection surface only on appeal denies that party any chance to cure it, so courts treat the silence at trial as a waiver of the technical objection.
4. Since the respondent did not object, the document is held to be proved: This overstates the effect of the waiver. Failure to object to the mode of proof does not, by itself, convert the electronic record into proved fact; it only forecloses a technical objection to how it was tendered. The document's evidentiary value is still assessed on the merits.

The rule that fits the facts and the reasoning behind it is the third option.

Therefore, the correct answer is An objection to the method of proof cannot be raised at the appellate stage as the original plaintiff cannot rectify the error.

Answer 13

The correct option is (B): That irrespective of compliance with Section 65B, contents of electronic documents could be proved through Sections 62-65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Answer 14

The question asks specifically which holding of Navjot Sandhu was overruled in Anvar v Basheer. Since both cases deal with proof of electronic records, it helps to isolate the precise point of departure between them.

1. That in criminal conspiracy cases, the method of proof of conspiracy is controlled by Section 10 and not Section 65B: Section 10 deals with admissibility of acts and statements of co-conspirators as substantive evidence of the conspiracy, not with how electronic records are proved. This was never the holding under challenge in Navjot Sandhu, so it was not what Anvar v Basheer overruled.
2. That irrespective of compliance with Section 65B, contents of electronic documents could be proved through Sections 62-65: This was exactly the position Navjot Sandhu had taken, that electronic records could fall back on the general secondary evidence provisions even without a Section 65B certificate. Anvar v Basheer held Section 65B to be a complete code for electronic evidence and overruled this specific holding, making the certificate mandatory wherever secondary electronic evidence is relied upon.
3. That electronic documents, as a special class, had to be proved through expert opinion under Section 45: Section 45 concerns opinion evidence of experts on matters like handwriting or science, and was never the basis on which Navjot Sandhu allowed electronic records to be proved. This mischaracterises what was actually decided.
4. That a document must first be marked and then admitted for its contents, and this sequence cannot be reversed: This describes procedure for marking exhibits generally, not the specific interplay between Sections 65B and 62-65 that was at issue between the two judgments.

The only option that accurately captures the point of conflict between the two judgments is the second.

Therefore, the correct answer is That irrespective of compliance with Section 65B, contents of electronic documents could be proved through Sections 62-65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Answer 15

The correct option is (D): Neither (A) nor (B).

Answer 16

This question tests the precise legal meaning of "per incuriam", not just a loose sense of "a wrong decision". The two options being tested both describe a judgment being "against" precedent or law, so the analysis has to focus on whether that is really what per incuriam means.

1. The judgment is against binding precedent of a higher court or larger bench: A decision can go against binding precedent, and it will then normally be treated as decided per incuriam only if the earlier precedent was not brought to the court's attention or was overlooked. If the court knowingly departed from a binding precedent it did consider, that is not the classic per incuriam situation; that is a decision made in awareness of the law, which this option does not capture, since it just says "against" precedent rather than "in ignorance of" it.
2. The judgment is against binding provisions of law applicable to the subject: The same gap applies. Per incuriam is about a court proceeding in ignorance of a statutory provision that was never placed before it or was overlooked, not simply reaching a result inconsistent with the provision. A decision can conflict with a statute for reasons other than oversight, such as by misinterpreting a provision it did consider, and that is an error correctable in appeal, not necessarily a case decided per incuriam.
3. Both (A) and (B): Since neither statement, on its own wording, captures the ignorance or oversight element that defines per incuriam, combining them does not fix the underlying imprecision.
4. Neither (A) nor (B): This is the accurate answer because per incuriam turns on a binding statute or precedent being overlooked or not considered by the court, a much narrower idea than simply reaching a result "against" precedent or law as phrased in the first two options.

Because both A and B describe the wrong test, a result inconsistent with law, rather than the real test, a binding authority overlooked, the correct choice is that neither of them accurately defines per incuriam.

Therefore, the correct answer is Neither (A) nor (B).

Answer 17

The correct option is (B): No, since there is another attesting witness who has not been summoned to court, that witness must be first examined under Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Answer 18

The question tests the sequence courts must follow under Sections 68 and 71 of the Indian Evidence Act when proving due execution of a will, and specifically whether a scribe can be called once one attesting witness fails to recall the execution.

1. Yes, since one attesting witness has not recalled execution, any other evidence is now admissible under Section 71: Section 71 permits proof by other evidence only once the attesting witnesses required to be called under Section 68 have actually been examined and have failed to prove execution. Here a second attesting witness exists and has not yet been called at all, so the precondition for turning to Section 71 has not been met.
2. No, since another attesting witness has not been summoned, that witness must be examined first under Section 68: Section 68 requires at least one attesting witness to be called to prove execution of a document required by law to be attested, such as a will. Where the first witness called cannot recall the execution and a second attesting witness is available and has not yet been examined, the proper course is to call that second witness before resorting to any other mode of proof.
3. No, since one attesting witness has denied execution, no other evidence can prove it: This overstates the bar. A single attesting witness's failure to recall does not permanently foreclose proof of the will; it only means the party must continue down the proper sequence, starting with any other available attesting witness, before other evidence becomes admissible.
4. Yes, the scribe is a direct witness and admissible under Section 60: Section 60 concerns oral evidence generally being direct, but it does not override the specific requirement in Section 68 for attesting witnesses to be examined for documents that the law requires to be attested. The general rule in Section 60 cannot substitute for the specific procedure Section 68 lays down.

Since a second attesting witness remains available and unexamined, the correct next step is to call that witness under Section 68 rather than jump to other evidence.

Therefore, the correct answer is No, since there is another attesting witness who has not been summoned to court, that witness must be first examined under Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Answer 19

The correct option is (D): All the above.

Answer 20

This question asks about the Supreme Court's position on when a Section 65B(4) certificate must be produced in a criminal trial, and it tests whether each of three separate propositions is correct, since the fourth option simply combines them.

1. The certificate must generally be produced at the time of production of documents, meaning filing of the chargesheet in a criminal case: This reflects the ordinary rule that electronic evidence should be certified and placed on record at the stage the prosecution first produces its documents, which in a criminal case is typically along with the chargesheet, so the defence has fair notice of the evidence relied upon.
2. If missing or deficient, the documents can be supplied at a later stage and the court can be asked to take them on record: Courts have recognised that a missing or defective certificate is not necessarily fatal forever; an application can be made during trial to supply the certificate or correct the deficiency, so that genuine evidence is not lost over a curable procedural gap.
3. Any application to take additional documents on record during trial must be examined so as not to cause unfair prejudice to the accused: Allowing later production is not unconditional; the court must still check that admitting the certificate or document at that later stage does not unfairly disadvantage the accused, for example by giving too little time to respond or by changing the case at a late stage.
4. All the above: Since each of the three individual propositions independently reflects part of the Supreme Court's actual position, combining all three gives the complete and accurate picture, general timing at production of documents, a safety valve for later correction, and a prejudice check on that safety valve.

Because all three underlying statements are independently correct and work together as a coherent rule, the combined option is the right answer.

Therefore, the correct answer is All the above.