ANVAR P.V. versus P.K. BASHEER AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 18-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R 399 
ANVAR P.V. 
A 
v. 
P.K. BASHEER AND ORS.· 
(Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 
I 
B 
[R.M. LODHA, CJI, KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON 
FALi NARIMAN, JJ.) 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: s.100(1)(b) r/w 
s.123(2)(ii) and (4) - Election petition - On the ground that C 
publication, announcement and speeches in relation to 
personal character and conduct of petitioner, amounted to 
commission of corrupt practices - High Court dismissed 
election petition - Held: There was no reliable evidence to 
show that the printing and distribution of alleged publication o 
was with the consent of returned candidate or his election 
agent - The speeches, songs and announcements were 
recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into 
the computer -
CD were made therefrom which were 
produced in court, without due certification. - Those CDs were 
E 
not admissible in evidence since the mandatory requirements 
of s.658 of Evidence Act were not satisfied - There was 
missing link in chain of circumstances to lead to a reasonable 
inference on consent by returned candidate with regard to 
printing - Election petition was rightly dismissed - Evidence 
Act, 1872 - s. 658. 
Evidence Act, 1872: s.658 - Admissibility of electronic 
record - Held: An electronic record by way of secondary 
evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the 
F 
' 
requirements u/s. 658 are satisfied - Thus, in the case of CD, 
G 
VCD, chip, etc., the same should be accompanied by the 
certificate in terms of s. 658 obtained at the time of taking the 
document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining 
399 
H 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
• 
A to that electronic record, is inadmissible -
Information 
Technology Act, 2000. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 658 of Evidence Act deals with the 
B admissibility of the electronic record. The Evidence Act 
does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic 
record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 
658 of the Evidence Act are not complied with. The 
evidence relating to electronic record is a special 
C provision. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law 
will always prevail over the general law. Sections 63 and 
65 have no application in the case of secondary 
evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly 
governed by Sections 65A and 658. An electronic record 
o by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in 
evidence unless the requirements under Section 658 are 
satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the 
same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of 
Section 658 obtained at the time of taking the document, 
E without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that 
electronic record, is inadmissible. The appellant 
admittedly has not produced any certificate in terms of 
Section 658 in respect of the CDs. Therefore, the same 
cannot be admitted in evidence. [Paras 13, 17, 22 to 23] 
F [411-8; 415-C-H] 
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru 
(2005) 11 SCC 600: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 79 - overruled. 
2. The speeches, songs and announcements were 
G recorded using other instruments and by feeding them 
into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which wen\ 
produced in court, without due certification. 'T\"i e. 
allegation was that at least 25,000 copies of Exhibit-I" 1-
leaflet were printed and published with the consent of the 
H returned candidate-first respondent which allegedly 
• 
ANVAR P.V. v. P.K. BASHEER 
401 
contained a false statement regarding involvement of the 
A 
appellant in a murder case to prejudice the prospects of 
the appellant's election. The corrupt practice must be 
committed by (i) returned candidate, (ii) or his election 
agent (iii) or any other person acting with the consent of 
the returned candidate or his election agent. There was 
B 
no evidence to prove that the printing and publication of 
Exhibit-P1-leaflet was made with the consent of the first 
respondent or his election agent. 'Connivance' is different 
from 'consent'. [paras 24, 26, 30] [416-C, D; 417-G-H; 420-
B-D] 
C 
Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh and Anr. (1984) 1 
SCC 390: 1984 (2) SCR 6 - relied! on. 
3. Consent is to be inferred from the circumstances. 
However, if an inference on consent from the 
D 
circumstances is to be drawn, ~he circumstances put 
together should form a chain ~hich should lead to a 
reasonable conclusion that the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.