Trace Your Case

ANVAR V. P. K. BASHEER

Anvar v. P. K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473

ISSUE:

  • Whether electronic records, such as CDs submitted by the appellant, can be admitted as evidence without compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
  • Whether the evidence presented by the appellant met the standard of proof required to establish corrupt practices akin to a criminal charge?

RULE:

  • Compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records.
  • Secondary electronic evidence must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) certifying its authenticity; otherwise, it is inadmissible.
  • Allegations of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, akin to the standard required for criminal charges.

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Anvar P.V., contested the Kerala Legislative Assembly election on April 13, 2011, as an independent candidate supported by the Left Democratic Front (LDF). The first respondent, P.K. Basheer, supported by the United Democratic Front (UDF), was declared elected from the 034 Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency.
  • The appellant alleged that the first respondent engaged in corrupt practices under Sections 123(2)(ii) and 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These included defamatory publications (Annexure-A leaflet) and misuse of songs, speeches, and posters during the election campaign.
  • The appellant claimed that Annexure-A falsely implicated him in a 1995 murder case, despite his acquittal, and alleged that the first respondent consented to the printing, publication, and distribution of this leaflet.
  • The appellant further alleged that CDs containing songs, speeches, and announcements used for the first respondent’s campaign were part of corrupt practices.
  • The Kerala High Court dismissed the election petition on April 13, 2012, stating that the appellant failed to prove the alleged corrupt practices or the first respondent’s consent to the acts.
  • Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition, arguing that the High Court erred in dismissing the case and disputing the treatment of evidence, particularly electronic records.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that electronic records must meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for admissibility.
  • It held that the CDs produced by the appellant lacked the mandatory Section 65B certification and were, therefore, inadmissible as evidence.
  • The court found no evidence to prove that the first respondent consented to the printing, publishing, or distribution of Annexure-A. It ruled that “consent,” rather than knowledge or connivance, is crucial for establishing corrupt practices under Section 123(4).
  • The allegations of corrupt practices related to Annexure-A, songs, and speeches were deemed unproven due to insufficient and inadmissible evidence.
  • The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision that the charges were not established beyond a reasonable doubt.