ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter 'plaintiff') and perused the impugned order dated 17.01.2017 allowing the objections of the respondent-defendant (hereinafter 'defendant') to the admissibility of certain electronic records in the course of the trial in the suit laid by the plaintiff questioning her termination from service by the defendant.
(2.) Mr. R.K. Daga appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the trial court untenably has taken a narrow and restricted view of the Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1872') in holding that the certificate requisite under Section 65 -B (4) of the Act of 1872 must necessarily accompany the electronic record/documents when filed and if the certificate is subsequently filed it will be of no avail. Mr.R.K. Daga relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan [2016 (2) RLW 945 (Raj.) ] to submit that the certificate requisite under Section 65-B (4) for admissibility of electronic record as evidence in a trial could be subsequently filed. Emphasis was laid on Para 15 in Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan which reads as under:- 15. Although, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the requisite certificate must accompany the electronic record pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence when the same is produced in evidence, but in my view it does not mean that it must be produced along with the charge sheet and if it is not produced along with the charge sheet, doors of the Court are completely shut and it can not be produced subsequently in any circumstance. Section 65-B of the Evidence Act deals with admissibility of secondary evidence in the form of electronic record and the procedure to be followed and the requirements be fulfilled before such an evidence can be held to be admissible in evidence and not with the stage at which such a certificate is to be produced before the Court. One of the principal issues arising for consideration in the above case before Hon'ble Court was the nature and manner of admission of electronic records.
(3.) Mr. R.K. Daga further submitted that the judgment in Paras Jain v. State of Rajasthan (supra) was followed in the case of State of Rajasthan through the Special Public Prosecutor v. Sri Ram Sharma and Others reported in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4383/2016 decided on 02.09.2016 by this court. It was submitted that in the instant case subsequent to the computer generated documents (electronic record) taken on record by the trial court on an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff giving out the Email Ids from which she downloaded the concerned documents also stating the computer used for the process. It was submitted that such affidavit partook the character of the certificate requisite under Section 65-B (4) of the Act of 1872 and based thereon the evidence in electronic form was admissible. The trial court has in the circumstances erred in upholding the objections of the defendant pertaining to the admissibility of such electronic record.;