Supreme Court of India

State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru

(2005) 11 SCC 600; 2005 INSC 33320051 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Appeals arose from the trial of the accused in the attack on Parliament House on 13 December 2001. The prosecution relied on call records and data from a laptop.
Issue
Among other issues, whether printouts of call records were admissible without a certificate under S.65B(4) of the Evidence Act.
Held
The Court held the printouts admissible as secondary evidence under Ss.63 and 65 even without a S.65B(4) certificate. This view was later overruled in Anvar P V v P K Basheer (2014).
Principle
(Superseded) Electronic records could be proved under the general secondary-evidence provisions; Anvar later made the S.65B certificate mandatory.
Cite this

Facts

  • Appeals arose from the trial of the accused in the attack on Parliament House on 13 December 2001. The prosecution relied on call records and data from a laptop.

Issue

  1. Among other issues, whether printouts of call records were admissible without a certificate under S.65B(4) of the Evidence Act.

Held

  • The Court held the printouts admissible as secondary evidence under Ss.63 and 65 even without a S.65B(4) certificate. This view was later overruled in Anvar P V v P K Basheer (2014).

Cite this

Citation

State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600; 2005 INSC 333

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1769219/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.