The Supreme Court in Harpal Singh @ Chhota Vs. State Of Punjab, has reiterated that any electronic record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless a certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act is produced.

Refer to the judgment given in the following link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzXilfcxe7yuVUVZLU1oRjF0TTg/view

Regards

1) section 65B certificate is necessary in second case . Without certificate CD would not be admissible in evidence

2) three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) overruled the above dictum of the judgment of the two-judge Bench in Navjot Sandhu (supra) by holding that Section 65B relating to electronic records being a special provision, "the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law." It was held that "Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record." Even "in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc. the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible." In Anvar P.V. (supra), in relation to the CDs no certificate had been produced in terms of Section 65B EA. It was held that the electronic evidence in the form of CDs/DVD/Chip shall be accompanied by the certificate "in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible."

3) 69. The mandatory requirement under Section 65B (4) is that the certificate produced should satisfy the requirement under Section 65B (4)

(a), (b), and (c) and the requirement that they should be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate). The electronic evidence thus produced that is accompanied by such certificate "shall be deemed to be also a document", dispensing with the further proof of production of the original. In other words, there is no escape from the requirement of producing the signed certificate by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities.

It has been held in Harpal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab( AIR 2016 SC 5389) that any electronic record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless a certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act is produced.

1, No electronic evidence without the certificate u/s65B is admissible in evidence in court as held by the Supreme Court.

2.Now once they file the saame you can dispute its authenticity and ask for sending this to FSL to test its genuineness.

The Supreme Court in Harpal Singh @ Chhota Vs. State Of Punjab, has reiterated that any electronic record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless a certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act is produced....

In court, the judgment in Anvar PV case wherein it was categorically held that “an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.

You can protest it if you are an aggrieved party in the current case.