1. Legal Framework Post-2023

Old Law: Indian Evidence Act 1872 Sec 65B - Admissibility of electronic records

New Law: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 Sec 63 replaces 65B, preserves structure but tightens bolts. Sec 62 defines primary vs secondary electronic evidence.

Rule:

• Primary Evidence: Original device itself produced in court - e.g., produce server hard disk, original mobile phone with logs. No certificate needed.
• Secondary Evidence: Printout, screenshot, copy on pen drive, CD, email forwarded, server log print, Excel export. Certificate mandatory under Sec 63(4) BSA [65B(4) old] - condition precedent.

What certificate must contain - Sec 63(2)/65B(2):

a) Identify electronic record and describe manner of production
b) Give particulars of device involved
c) State device was operating properly, regular use, information fed in ordinary course, reproduces original
d) Signed by person in responsible official position in relation to operation of device, who has personal knowledge / control of original device

Rajasthan HC 2025 - Shwetabh Singhal vs J.K. & Sons (SB CWP 12210/2025) clarified: Certificate must be from owner of original recording device. Person whose device merely contains transferred copy cannot certify.

2. Five-Step Authentication Process for Digital Logs

Step 1 - Seizure & Hashing:
Follow Sec 79A IT Act + CERT-In guidelines. Create hash (SHA-256) at time of seizure. Any delay in seizure weakens authenticity - Supreme Court in forgery cases held delay makes tampering possible.

Step 2 - Chain of Custody:
Document who handled log, when, where. Use write-blocker. Failure = log rejected.

Step 3 - 65B/63 Certificate:
Mandatory. Must be filed at time tendering evidence, not later. Supreme Court allowed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar that court can grant time to file certificate if interest of justice, but cannot admit evidence without it.

Format:

I,, Designation, in charge of Server X at, state that server was regularly used, operating properly, logs generated in ordinary course, printout is true copy.[Name][Location]

Must be signed by person who actually took printout and compared with original.

Case Law: Badrul Hoque v State - Certifier must personally verify. Person who did not personally take printout from original device and did not compare cannot certify.

Step 4 - Corroboration:
Logs alone insufficient for conviction. Need corroboration - eyewitness, other logs. CDR + tower location + bank log must interlink.

Step 5 - Anti-Tampering Proof:
Show system was tamper-evident, NTP synced, no admin override. If logs editable (e.g., Excel), prove access controls.

3. Landmark Case Laws - Evolution

Stage 1 - Liberal Era

State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600 - Parliament Attack Case
Supreme Court held even without Sec 65B certificate, electronic evidence (call logs, emails) could be admitted via Sec 65 and oral evidence. Printouts of intercepted calls admitted.

Stage 2 - Strict Era - Current Law

Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 - 3-Judge Bench - Election Petition

Facts: Audio-visual CDs tendered as evidence of corrupt practices in election. Trial court admitted without 65B certificate relying on oral evidence.

Supreme Court overruled Navjot Sandhu: Sec 65B is complete code, exclusive mode for secondary electronic evidence. Electronic records cannot be admitted merely through oral testimony under Sec 65.

Ratio: Electronic records are only admissible if accompanied by certificate under Sec 65B(4), which certifies method of production and authenticity. Overruled liberal approach.

This is Bible of digital evidence in India.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1 - 3-Judge Bench Constitution Clarification

Facts: Election petition - video CDs of speeches. Question: Is certificate mandatory even if original device not available? What if party in possession not owner?

Court reaffirmed Anvar, overruled Shafhi Mohammad v State of HP (2018) which had suggested flexibility.

Key holdings:

1. Certificate mandatory for any secondary electronic record, unless original device itself produced.
2. Certificate can be obtained at any stage - even if application under Sec 65B filed late, court should allow if in interest of justice, and can summon person in control of device under Sec 165 Evidence Act / Sec 316 BNSS.
3. If certificate not available due to person refusing, court can compel.
4. Where original device is in possession of adversary or third party who refuses, party can apply to court to obtain certificate.

This solved practical problem of logs lying with banks/telcos.

Recent High Court Application:

Rajasthan HC - Shwetabh Singhal case 2025: When digital evidence transferred between devices, original device owner must issue certificate. Transferred copy owner cannot.

Vismay Amitbhai Shah v State of Gujarat 2020 Guj HC: Contents of electronic records may be proved under Sec 65B.

Stage 3 - New Law BSA

BSA Sec 63: Same as 65B but language tightened. Certificate now under Sec 63(4). Includes requirement to mention hash value, time stamp.

LiveLaw analysis: BSA preserves old law while tightening nearly every bolt.

4. Banking Digital Logs Specific

Banking transaction logs, core banking logs, SWIFT logs are critical in fraud cases like Yes Bank, ICICI.

RBI Guidelines: System audit logs must be retained 8 years, tamper-proof, with maker-checker.

In Yes Bank forensic - Grant Thornton audit, logs showed loans approved and released same day, transfers before approval, backdated documentation. Logs admitted because:

• Original CBS server produced
• Certificate by CTO in responsible position
• Hash matched

If bank produces log print without certificate - inadmissible per Anvar.

5. Checklist for Lawyer to Authenticate Log

If you are producing digital log in court:

1. Is original device available? If yes, produce it as primary evidence - no certificate.
2. If printout, obtain Sec 63(4) certificate from person controlling original device, with all 4 clauses of Sec 63(2).
3. Certificate must identify record - e.g., "Server log from 192.168.1.1 for period 1 Jan 2024 to 31 Jan 2024 containing 15,000 lines, hash SHA256 XXX"
4. Show device regularly used, properly operating.
5. File certificate at time of filing evidence, not after cross.
6. If opponent refuses certificate, file application under Arjun Panditrao - request court to summon device incharge under Sec 316 BNSS / Sec 165 BSA.