section 65A and section 65B are both amendments introduced by parliament dealing with electronic evidence and their admissibility. these provisions have always been scrutinized and interpreted in differently making it further more difficult to define and understand them.
in the case of Arjun Pandirao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors 2020 SCC Online SC571 admissibility of electronic evidence CD was questioned on the fact that the evidence wasnt submitted with the required certificate as per sec 65B (4). earlier honorable high court ruled that the evidence that is CD was admissible even without the certificate because the person who had the control of the system and CD gave his testimony as a witness. this ruling of high court was then challenged in honorable supreme court and the apex court then took into consideration a previous case of shafi mohammad v state of himachal pradesh (2018) 2SCC 801 and declared it per incurium as it had held that the requirement of certificate under 65B(4) is procedural and can be relaxed if the court of law thinks fit of it in interest of justice. the apex court upheld the judgement given in the Anvar PV v PK basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 that the certificate as mentioned in the section 65B(4) of evidence act is mandatory and required to be exhibited along with the electronic evidence to make the evidence admissible. it also held that the certificate is not mandatory if the evidence is a primary evidence and an original evidence.