Section 65B Evidence Act in BSA: Section 63 Certificate Explained

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The basic conditions for admitting computer output are the same, but the certificate under Section 63(4) must now be in the form given in the Schedule, in two parts: Part A signed by the person in charge of the device and Part B signed by an expert, with hash values.

What Section 63 BSA says

Section 63(1): computer output as a document

Information in an electronic record that is printed on paper, or stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory, and produced by a “computer or any communication device” or otherwise stored in electronic form, is deemed to be a document. If the conditions of the section are met, it is admissible without further proof or production of the original.

Section 63(2): four conditions

• the output was produced while the device was regularly used to store or process information for activities regularly carried on by the person in lawful control of it;
• information of that kind was regularly fed into the device in the ordinary course of those activities;
• throughout the material period the device was operating properly, or any malfunction did not affect the record or its accuracy; and
• the record reproduces, or is derived from, information fed in during the ordinary course of those activities.

Section 63(3): combinations of devices

Where several devices were used, whether standalone, in a computer system or network, through a computer resource or an intermediary, they are treated as a single device.

Section 63(4): the certificate

Wherever an electronic record is produced for admission, a certificate must be submitted along with it “at each instance”. It must identify the record and how it was produced, give particulars of the devices involved, and deal with the conditions in Section 63(2). It is signed by a person in charge of the device or the relevant activities, “and an expert”, and statements may be made to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief.

The Schedule certificate: Part A and Part B

• Part A is filled by the party producing the record. It identifies the record and the device used, states who was in lawful control of it, confirms the Section 63(2) conditions and records the hash value of the record.
• Part B is “to be filled by the expert”. The expert confirms the hash value and the algorithm used (for example SHA-256 or MD5). A hash is a unique code generated from the file; any change in the file changes the hash, so it proves integrity.

In Pune Bar Association v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 599 of 2026), reported on 28 May 2026, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant upheld Section 63(4) against a challenge of manifest arbitrariness. It held that Part B can be signed not only by an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the IT Act but also by any person the court is satisfied has special skill in computer science and cyber forensics, since Section 39(2) BSA does not exclude Section 39(1).

What changed from Section 65B

• Prescribed format: Section 65B(4) had no fixed form. The BSA Schedule now fixes one, in two parts.
• Expert signature added: the words “and an expert” are new. Under 65B, only the responsible official signed.
• Hash value: integrity is now shown through a hash in the certificate itself.
• Wider device language: “communication device” and semiconductor memory are expressly covered, which settles doubts about mobile phones and pen drives.
• “At each instance”: a certificate must accompany the record each time it is submitted.
• Primary evidence widened: Section 57 BSA adds Explanations treating an electronic record from proper custody as primary evidence “unless it is disputed”, and treating each file, each stored video recording and each automated storage instance (including temporary files) as primary evidence.
• Section 61 BSA: an electronic record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic, and has the same legal effect as other documents, subject to Section 63.

Important case law

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473

A three-judge bench held that Sections 65A and 65B form a complete code for electronic evidence. A secondary copy of an electronic record (such as a CD) is inadmissible without a Section 65B(4) certificate. It overruled the contrary view in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) on this point.

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

A two-judge bench relaxed the rule, saying the certificate was procedural and could be dispensed with where the party was not in possession of the device. This created a conflict.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1

Decided on 14 July 2020 by Justices R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat and V. Ramasubramanian. The Court held:

• the certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility of electronic evidence; Anvar P.V. is correct law and Shafhi Mohammad is overruled;
• no certificate is needed if the original device is produced, for example when the owner of a phone or laptop steps into the witness box and proves it;
• where a certificate is demanded and refused, the party can apply to the court to direct its production;
• the certificate can be produced at a later stage of trial, provided the accused is not prejudiced;
• telecom and internet providers were directed to preserve call detail records seized in investigation.

These principles continue to guide courts under Section 63 BSA, since the core structure of the provision is the same.

Common confusions

Original device vs copy

If the original phone or hard disk is produced and proved, it is primary evidence. A printout, CD, pen drive or screenshot is computer output and needs the Section 63(4) certificate.

Admissibility vs proof of truth

A certificate makes the record admissible. Its reliability, and whether it was tampered with, is still for the court to weigh.

For the general public: using WhatsApp chats, emails or CCTV in court

• Do not delete or forward-edit the original; keep the device safe, since the original device is the best evidence.
• Export chats or download footage, and record the date, device and method used.
• Prepare the Schedule certificate: Part A signed by you (or the person in charge of the device) and Part B by a cyber forensic expert, both mentioning the same hash value.
• File the certificate along with the record. If an organisation (bank, telecom company, housing society for CCTV) holds the data, ask it in writing for a certificate; if it refuses, apply to the court for a direction.
• For CCTV, ask for preservation quickly, as many systems overwrite footage within days.

Exam angle

• 65A = 62 BSA; 65B = 63 BSA; 45A = 39(2) BSA.
• Certificate now has a fixed form in the Schedule with Part A and Part B and a hash value.
• Anvar P.V. (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) 7 SCC 1 are the leading cases; Shafhi Mohammad was overruled.
• No certificate needed when the original device itself is produced.
• Section 57 BSA Explanations make electronic records from proper custody primary evidence unless disputed.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 65B Evidence Act?

Section 65B is now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in force from 1 July 2024.

Is the 65B certificate still mandatory under BSA?

Yes. A certificate under Section 63(4) in the Schedule form must accompany the electronic record at each instance it is submitted, unless the original device is itself produced and proved.

Who signs the Section 63 certificate?

Part A is signed by the party or the person in charge of the device, and Part B by an expert. The Supreme Court in 2026 accepted that a person with proven expertise in computer science and cyber forensics can sign Part B.

Are WhatsApp chats admissible without a certificate?

Screenshots or printouts need a Section 63(4) certificate. If the phone itself is produced and proved by its owner, a certificate is not required.

Can the certificate be filed later?

Yes. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar allows a later production during trial, so long as it does not cause prejudice to the other side.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Sections 39, 57, 61, 62, 63 and the Schedule (India Code)
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
• Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 599 of 2026, Supreme Court of India

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.