In a revision petition filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking an order dated 06-10-2023 by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, to be set aside, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati set aside the trial court’s order and directed re-verification of the petitioner’s self-certificate.
The petitions filed by the petitioner to receive additional documents and for recalling PW1 for marking documents were allowed, but when the petitioner attempted to mark the WhatsApp status, email prints, etc., by producing his self-certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the respondent objected, stating that the documents could not be marked unless a certificate was produced as per Section 65B of the Act. Hence, the impugned orders were passed whereby the petitioner was not permitted to mark the documents.
The petitioner contended that the Trial Judge had erroneously dismissed the petitioner while ignoring Sections 14 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, which have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Evidence Act, as well as the fact that Family Courts are empowered to receive photocopies for the adjudication of the lis.
The Court stated that the petitioner’s argument regarding the powers conferred upon Family Courts to receive documents that might be barred or inadmissible under the strict technical rules of the Evidence Act could not be considered, as the Trial Court is not a Family Court. Hence, the Court held that the trial court had rightly rejected this plea. Further, the Court stated that the trial court had rightly declined to mark the copies of CITI bank statements, offering sufficient reasoning that the petitioner had made no efforts to obtain the original statements from the bank.
Regarding other documents retrieved from the petitioner’s mobile phone, the Court referred to Arjun PanditraoKhotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1, wherein it was confirmed that the certificate under Section 65B (4) was mandatory for secondary electronic evidence, and that it could be issued by the person in ‘lawful control’ of the device. The Court stated that a self-certificate is legally admissible and generally sufficient for WhatsApp messages or call recordings present on the petitioner’s own phone.
The Court stated that the trial court’s order holding that Section 65B mandates a certificate from the proper authority, but not the petitioner’s self-certificate, was untenable and set it aside. The Court directed the trial court to verify the self-certificate and, if the same fulfils all requirements, to permit the petitioner to mark the documents. Thus, the revision petition was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Anita Ahuja
For Respondent – Bhusarapu B Yesu Babu
