In which judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that a party, who is desirous of proving electronic evidence but does not have access to the device from which, the document was produced, is not required to produce and prove the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act:
Explanation:
In Shafi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified the position regarding Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It held that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) is procedural and can be relaxed in cases where the party producing the electronic evidence does not have custody or access to the device from which the document was produced. In such situations, secondary evidence can be led without the certificate, provided other conditions for admissibility are met.