I have produced digital photographs clicked by my nearest relative,as an evidence in the Couryt in support of my certain arguments.Since this is an Electronic Evidence,it is necessary to produce a certificate under subsection 4 of 65B.

The subsection states that this certificate isrequired to be signed by

" a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relavent device or the management of the relavent activities(whichever is appropriate) shall be the evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purpose of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best o knowledge and belief of the person stating it"

My query is that who would be legaly authentic person to sign the required certificate under sub-section 4 of 65B in my case,where in the digital photos ( electronic evidence for case) have been clicked on a personal camera by a family  person? What is the interpretation  of " a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the...............management of the relavent activities" in my case when the devise is domestic and the person creating the digital photo is a family person. Please guide as to who would be the person to sign the certificate in my casre under sub-section 4 of 65B?

I think who clicked the photograph, is the person who may certify.

Thanks Adv. Arvind Sir for your opinion and very quick response to my query.

Can you give citation in any of the High Court / Apex Court judgement in support to this opinion?It will be quite helpful for me to defend.

Dear Vilas,

Since these provisions are quite new, and there has not been much litigation. But I can tell as a matter of fact that an affidavit as to it's authenticity (this is the certificate) by the person who clicked the photograph alongwith original MMC Card would do. Nothing more is required. Though there is no direct case on admissibility of electronic evidence you can refer to to get a broad idea : State v. Navjot Sandu (2005) SC

Thanks Adv. Baharat Chug,

I have gone through  the case referred by you. The provisions in 65B have been discussed in this Judgement by the Apex Court, on pages 63,65 and 106.But these discussions do not interprete the phrase,

".....the person ocuppying the official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relavant activities ( whichever is appropriate ).......stating it."

quoted in 65B.

Is there any other source which would interprete, "...the person occupying the official position...".?