Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

By Advocate Panchanand Shaw, Bar Council of West Bengal · Published 3 Nov 2026 · Digital evidence

The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) settled a question that quietly decides a large share of Indian cyber crime cases: when is an electronic record — a WhatsApp chat, a bank statement PDF, a call detail record, a CCTV clip — legally admissible in court? The three-judge bench held that a certificate is ordinarily mandatory before such a record can be relied on, that the requirement is not a technical formality a court may casually waive, and that a party cannot be refused the chance to produce the certificate. For a victim and for an accused person, that single ruling frequently decides whether the case survives at all.

The decision remains the current law on electronic evidence. It clarified two earlier judgments of the same court and left one issue open, and it now stands beside section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaced section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for proceedings on or after 1 July 2024. This article explains what the case decided, what a certificate under section 63(4) BSA looks like, who signs it, and how the rule plays out in a real cyber crime complaint or defence.

The question the court was asked

An election dispute had been argued on the strength of electronic material. A two-judge bench doubted whether a certificate was needed in every case, or only when the electronic record was a copy. Rather than decide it, the bench referred the question to a larger bench. The larger bench then framed the issue squarely: is the certificate a condition precedent to admissibility, or a curable formality that a court can dispense with?

Before this ruling, the leading case was Anvar P.V. v P.K. Basheer (2014), which had held that electronic evidence must be proved in accordance with section 65B. Later, Tomaso Bruno v State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) had been read by some courts as saying that if an electronic record was produced without an objection, the certificate could be treated as waived. Tribunals and trial courts split on what to do when the certificate arrived late, or never arrived, and the accused had already been convicted on screenshots and call logs.

What the judgment held

The court held that section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was a complete and special code for admissibility of electronic records, and that the certificate described in sub-section (4) was mandatory. Where the prosecution or a party relies on a computer output — a printout, a copy, a downloaded statement — the certificate must be produced, and evidence without it is not admissible. The court disapproved the line of reasoning that treated the certificate as an empty ritual, and it clarified that Tomaso Bruno was correctly decided only in part: the absence of a certificate cannot simply be cured because nobody objected at the time.

The bench also gave a practical instruction that is often forgotten in cyber crime trials. If a party asks the court to direct the person in charge of a computer or device to produce the certificate, the court should ordinarily allow the request and should not reject it mechanically. The certificate may be produced at a later stage of the trial than the record itself. The court retains the power to summon the signatory. In other words, the law is strict about the certificate but not hostile to a party who genuinely tries to obtain it.

The narrow exception the court recognised

The judgment carved out one situation in which a certificate is not required. If the owner of the device steps into the witness box and proves the electronic record himself — for example, a witness produces his own phone and shows the messages on it, and the court is satisfied that it is the original and not a copy — then what is produced is not a "computer output" and no certificate under the section is needed. The moment the same witness relies instead on a printout, a screenshot saved to a pen drive, or a PDF emailed by somebody else, the exception collapses and the certificate requirement returns in full.

That distinction sounds narrow, and it is. In practice it means a complainant who still has the phone, and can explain the messages on it in court, is on much firmer ground than one who arrives with a folder of screenshots and a story. It also explains why forensic preservation of the original device, done early and documented properly, is often worth more than any number of printouts.

Why this matters most in cyber crime cases

Almost every online fraud, sextortion or matrimonial fraud complaint is built on electronic material. The money trail lives in a bank statement or a UPI transaction log. The threat lives in a chat or a voice note. The identity of the accused, if it is proved at all, often comes from an IP log or a call detail record that a telecom operator or a platform holds. Each of those records is a "computer output" in the eyes of the law, and each ordinarily needs a certificate from the right custodian before a court can lean on it.

Consider the familiar facts. A victim of UPI fraud files a complaint and hands over screenshots of the transaction and the fraudster's messages. The police register the case and, months later, the defence argues that the screenshots are inadmissible because no certificate accompanies them. If the victim had preserved the original device, or if the investigating officer had obtained a certificate from the bank and the operator, the objection would fall away. If nobody did, the case can stall at exactly the stage where the victim expected relief. The same pattern appears in matrimonial fraud, where the courts must decide whether a promise of marriage was dishonest from the outset — a question answered almost entirely by the chat record.

From section 65B of the old Act to section 63 of the BSA

For any proceeding on or after 1 July 2024, the same requirement lives in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Section 63 of the BSA governs the admissibility of electronic records, and section 63(4) prescribes the certificate. The certificate has to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device, or by a person in charge of the management of the relevant activities, and it must state the details of the device, the record, and the manner of its production. The format is set out in the Schedule to the Act, and it is common to see a two-part certificate: one part from the person in charge of the computer, the other from an expert who examined the data.

The substance did not change, but the section number did. This trips up practitioners who still describe everything as a "65B certificate". In a Kolkata or district court in a 2026 trial, the correct reference is a certificate under section 63(4) of the BSA — and a pleading that asks only for the old section number, without more, may be returned for correction.

How to get the certificate, in order

1. Identify the electronic record you actually need, and the person or institution that controls it — your bank, the telecom operator, the platform, or your own device.
2. Preserve the record before you touch it: keep the phone, do not factory-reset it, and take a screenshot with the date visible so the timeline is clear.
3. Write to the custodian — the bank through its nodal officer, the operator through its compliance desk — asking for the certified record and the prescribed certificate together.
4. File the record in your police complaint or before the court along with the certificate; if you do not have it, say so in writing and ask the court to direct its production.
5. Where the certificate is missing, move a formal application asking the court to summon the person in charge and direct production, instead of simply filing the printout and hoping nobody objects.
6. Keep every email, courier receipt and acknowledgment that shows you tried to obtain the certificate, because that record supports your application.

What decides the outcome

Three things tend to matter most. First, whether the record is the original or a copy: a witness who produces the device itself faces a far lower hurdle than one who produces a printout. Second, whether the certificate is complete and signed by the right person — a certificate signed by someone with no responsibility for the device is close to useless. Third, timing: an application to produce the certificate early tends to succeed, while a request made after the trial has closed faces a heavier burden.

One point is genuinely unsettled. Whether a defective certificate, or one produced very late in the trial or for the first time in appeal, can be cured is a question on which courts have taken differing views. The safe course is to assume the requirement is strict and to prepare the certificate long before anybody objects, rather than to gamble on a technicality that may not survive the High Court.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Filing only screenshots and assuming the platform will "sort it out"; the platform is not a party and cannot sign your certificate.
• Deleting the app or resetting the phone after taking screenshots, destroying the original that would have avoided the whole problem.
• Relying on a certificate signed by a clerk with no connection to the device, or on a certificate that copies the statutory language without naming the device.
• Waiting until the defence objects before moving to obtain the certificate, when the application could have been made at the charge stage.

A cyber crime case is rarely won on rhetoric; it is won on whether the messages, the IP logs and the money trail are proved the way Arjun Panditrao Khotkar requires. Victims who prepare their evidence properly from day one, and accused persons who understand what makes a record admissible, both start from a stronger position. For a structured reading of the surrounding rules, see our cyber crime blog and the practice page on criminal defence in Kolkata.

When to involve a lawyer

If your complaint has been rejected because the officer says your screenshots "are not evidence", if a charge has been framed against you on electronic material you believe is a copy without a certificate, or if you need an application drafted to summon a bank or telecom officer, that is the point to bring in counsel. The certificate requirement is precise, and a short application that names the right section and the right custodian often resolves a dispute that has stalled for months. For a first assessment, reach the chambers through the cyber crime lawyer in Kolkata page or contact us directly.

Frequently asked questions

Information for general guidance only and not legal advice. Provisions cited follow the Information Technology Act 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

Related articles

• Subramanian Swamy v Union of India: cyber defamation
• State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal: quashing a cyber crime FIR
• Shreya Singhal v Union of India: Impact on Cyber Law
• Ravinder Singh v State of Punjab: when is it cheating?
• K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India: privacy and cyber crime
• Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab: negligence and liability

Cyber crime lawyer in your city · Bank account freeze help · Contact