_*⭐40 Important Judgments on S. 65B Indian Evidence Act:*_
1) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu : (2005)11 SCC 600
2) Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)10 SCC 473
3) Shafhi Mohd. V. State of HP 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 7578
_*Concept of subcutaneous memory and its relevance:*_
4) Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation ILR (2008) 2 Del 842
_*Difference between ‘contents’ and ‘truth of contents’:*_
5) Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust of India case AIR 1983 Bom 1
_*Modalities of proof of digital evidecne:*_
6) Kundan Singh v. State (2015 SCC OnLine Del 13647)
7) Nidhi Kakkar v. Munish Kakkar (2011 SCC OnLine P& H 2599)
8) Jaimin Jewelery Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 3 Mah LJ 691
_*Modalities of CCTV evidence:*_
9) Bhupesh Tichkule v. The State of Maharashtra1.
_*Contemporaneous certification:*_
10) Sanju v. State of M.P. 2019 SCC OnLine MP 2070
11) Kamal Patel v. Ram Kishore Dogne 2016 SCC OnLine MP 938 : (2016) 1 MP LJ 528
_*Competency to sign the certificate and circumstances when it need not be produced:*_
12) Brajesh Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2016 SCC OnLine MP 8424
13) Shafhi Mohammad and Ors. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh Supra
_*Format of Certificate to be made under S.65B of Indian Evidence Act:*_
(It cant be straight jacket for every case. Still a relevant judgment is)
14) ARK Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CRT Shipmanagement Pvt. Ltd. 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 663, (2007) 6 Bom CR 311
_*Stage for procurement of 65B Certificate - Section 65B does not specify the stage at which the certificate under section 65B is to be filed:*_
15) State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515
_*Deficiency of 65 B is a curable defect:*_
16) Nyati Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Rajat Dinesh Chauhan and Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 7578
_*Stage for objection to the admissibility of documents*_
17) Sonu v. State of Haryana (2017) 8 SCC 570, (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 663 _*(Cannot be raised in Appeal.)*_
_*E-Evidecne Can’t be used in cross without 65B Certificate.*_
18) X. v. State of Maharashtra 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 143
_*Applicability of provision of section 65B in proceedings in family court proceedings:*_
19) Pramod E.K v. Louna V.C. 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 165, AIR 2019 Ker 85
_*Right to obtain mirror image of Hard Drive or E-Evidecne:*_
19) P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala & Anr.21 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1532.
_*Fate of evidence obtained illegally. Doctrine of fruits of poisonous tree - Not strictly applicable in India:*_
20) Bharati Tamang v. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 578
_*(- Illegally obtained evidecne is Admissible evidence as long as it is relevant. - Law Commission 94th Report)*_
_*One judgment taking different view in the context of digital evidecne.:*_
21) Anurima v. Sunil Mehta AIR 2016 MP 112
_*Exhibiting the document is an administrative act:*_
22) Bama Patil v. Rohidas Arjun Madhavi, (2004) 3 Bom CR 509 (Karnik, J.)
“even though a document may be admissible in evidence its probative value may be almost zero”.
23) State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, (1983) 3 SCC 118, paras 33 and 36
_*Stages in proof of document:*_
24) Sudir Engg. v. Nitco Roadways Ltd. (1995) 34 DRJ 86,
25) Walter D'Souza v. Anita D'Souza, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1671,
_*No application required for leading secondary evidence:*_
26) Karthik Bhat v. Niramla Wagh WP/11151/2017
27) Indian Overseas Bank v. Triokal Textile AIR 2007 Bom 24
_*Concept on Internal Evidence:*_
28) Mobarak Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857
_*Compilation consists of letters written by several authors and if the contents are of not much relevance but has a bearing on the issue then there are following two relevant judgements.*_
29) Jiyajirao Cotton Mils case OOCJ Suit 834 of 1951 Bhima Dhotre v. Pioneer Chemical Co.
1968 Mah LJ 879 (Para 4)
_*Summoning author of the letter and related circumstances:*_
30) Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1954 Bom 305 (Single Judge) - Followed in Mohd. Yusuf v. D (DB) AIR 1968 Bom 112.
_*Discarding the irrelevant and inadmissible portions in the affidavit of evidence and its contents. Law of affidavit of evidence.*_
31) Banganga Judgment Patel J.
(2015) 5 Bom CR 813
_*Admissibility of document to be used in cross examination:*_
32) Vijay Gupta v. Naresh Gupta. 2016 SCC Online Bom 8659 (4th May 2016 Order)
33) Geeta Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. State, (2009) 2 Mah LJ 410.
_*Stages for raising objection to the marking of documents and kinds of objections:*_
34) Bipin Shantilal Vs. State of Gujrat (2002)10 SCC 529 (Three Judges Bench)
35) R V Venkatachalah v. Arulmigu (2003)8 SCC 752
_*Full bench judgment summarising the law of documentary evidence:*_
36) Rasiklal Ghia v. Sibodh Mody (2008)5 BomCR 519.
_*Evidence by Power of Attorney:*_
37) (2010) 10 SCC 512
_*Applicability of evidence act in Arbitration proceedings :*_
38) Rashmi Housing Case
(2015)2 Bom CR 697
39) Jugmohan Singh Gujral
2004(1) ArbLR 212 Bom
40) Sahyadri Earthomovers
2011(6) Bom CR 393
1) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu : (2005)11 SCC 600
2) Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)10 SCC 473
3) Shafhi Mohd. V. State of HP 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 7578
_*Concept of subcutaneous memory and its relevance:*_
4) Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation ILR (2008) 2 Del 842
_*Difference between ‘contents’ and ‘truth of contents’:*_
5) Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust of India case AIR 1983 Bom 1
_*Modalities of proof of digital evidecne:*_
6) Kundan Singh v. State (2015 SCC OnLine Del 13647)
7) Nidhi Kakkar v. Munish Kakkar (2011 SCC OnLine P& H 2599)
8) Jaimin Jewelery Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 3 Mah LJ 691
_*Modalities of CCTV evidence:*_
9) Bhupesh Tichkule v. The State of Maharashtra1.
_*Contemporaneous certification:*_
10) Sanju v. State of M.P. 2019 SCC OnLine MP 2070
11) Kamal Patel v. Ram Kishore Dogne 2016 SCC OnLine MP 938 : (2016) 1 MP LJ 528
_*Competency to sign the certificate and circumstances when it need not be produced:*_
12) Brajesh Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2016 SCC OnLine MP 8424
13) Shafhi Mohammad and Ors. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh Supra
_*Format of Certificate to be made under S.65B of Indian Evidence Act:*_
(It cant be straight jacket for every case. Still a relevant judgment is)
14) ARK Shipping Co. Ltd. v. CRT Shipmanagement Pvt. Ltd. 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 663, (2007) 6 Bom CR 311
_*Stage for procurement of 65B Certificate - Section 65B does not specify the stage at which the certificate under section 65B is to be filed:*_
15) State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515
_*Deficiency of 65 B is a curable defect:*_
16) Nyati Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Rajat Dinesh Chauhan and Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 7578
_*Stage for objection to the admissibility of documents*_
17) Sonu v. State of Haryana (2017) 8 SCC 570, (2017) 3 SCC (Cri) 663 _*(Cannot be raised in Appeal.)*_
_*E-Evidecne Can’t be used in cross without 65B Certificate.*_
18) X. v. State of Maharashtra 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 143
_*Applicability of provision of section 65B in proceedings in family court proceedings:*_
19) Pramod E.K v. Louna V.C. 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 165, AIR 2019 Ker 85
_*Right to obtain mirror image of Hard Drive or E-Evidecne:*_
19) P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala & Anr.21 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1532.
_*Fate of evidence obtained illegally. Doctrine of fruits of poisonous tree - Not strictly applicable in India:*_
20) Bharati Tamang v. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 578
_*(- Illegally obtained evidecne is Admissible evidence as long as it is relevant. - Law Commission 94th Report)*_
_*One judgment taking different view in the context of digital evidecne.:*_
21) Anurima v. Sunil Mehta AIR 2016 MP 112
_*Exhibiting the document is an administrative act:*_
22) Bama Patil v. Rohidas Arjun Madhavi, (2004) 3 Bom CR 509 (Karnik, J.)
“even though a document may be admissible in evidence its probative value may be almost zero”.
23) State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, (1983) 3 SCC 118, paras 33 and 36
_*Stages in proof of document:*_
24) Sudir Engg. v. Nitco Roadways Ltd. (1995) 34 DRJ 86,
25) Walter D'Souza v. Anita D'Souza, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1671,
_*No application required for leading secondary evidence:*_
26) Karthik Bhat v. Niramla Wagh WP/11151/2017
27) Indian Overseas Bank v. Triokal Textile AIR 2007 Bom 24
_*Concept on Internal Evidence:*_
28) Mobarak Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857
_*Compilation consists of letters written by several authors and if the contents are of not much relevance but has a bearing on the issue then there are following two relevant judgements.*_
29) Jiyajirao Cotton Mils case OOCJ Suit 834 of 1951 Bhima Dhotre v. Pioneer Chemical Co.
1968 Mah LJ 879 (Para 4)
_*Summoning author of the letter and related circumstances:*_
30) Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1954 Bom 305 (Single Judge) - Followed in Mohd. Yusuf v. D (DB) AIR 1968 Bom 112.
_*Discarding the irrelevant and inadmissible portions in the affidavit of evidence and its contents. Law of affidavit of evidence.*_
31) Banganga Judgment Patel J.
(2015) 5 Bom CR 813
_*Admissibility of document to be used in cross examination:*_
32) Vijay Gupta v. Naresh Gupta. 2016 SCC Online Bom 8659 (4th May 2016 Order)
33) Geeta Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. State, (2009) 2 Mah LJ 410.
_*Stages for raising objection to the marking of documents and kinds of objections:*_
34) Bipin Shantilal Vs. State of Gujrat (2002)10 SCC 529 (Three Judges Bench)
35) R V Venkatachalah v. Arulmigu (2003)8 SCC 752
_*Full bench judgment summarising the law of documentary evidence:*_
36) Rasiklal Ghia v. Sibodh Mody (2008)5 BomCR 519.
_*Evidence by Power of Attorney:*_
37) (2010) 10 SCC 512
_*Applicability of evidence act in Arbitration proceedings :*_
38) Rashmi Housing Case
(2015)2 Bom CR 697
39) Jugmohan Singh Gujral
2004(1) ArbLR 212 Bom
40) Sahyadri Earthomovers
2011(6) Bom CR 393
Keywords
