The Delhi High Court on 8th December 2020 reserved its order in BJP leader Manoj Tiwari’s Petition challenging the summons issued against him in the criminal defamation case by Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anu Malhotra has reserved its order in the matter. The order will be pronounced on 17th December 2020. The bench has requested the trial court to defer hearing till then.
Manish Sisodia had filed a defamation case in a trial court against Tiwari and other BJP leaders such as Manjinder Singh Sirsa, Vijender Gupta, and Hans Raj Hans and spokesperson Harish Khurana for allegedly making false allegations of corruption of Rs. 2000 Crores against him in the construction of Delhi government school classrooms. All accused are out on bail in this matter.
Manoj Tiwari had moved the Delhi High Court wherein he had challenged the summoning order issued against him by the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal at Rouse Avenue Court in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Sisodia.
While challenging the summons issued by a trial court to Manoj Tiwari and other co-accused persons in November last year, Sr. Adv. Pinky Anand's main line of defence to quash the summons order was that the same was based on a CD which had been relied upon as evidence, even in the absence of a record.
She argued that in the absence of a record, the CD was not legally admissible as evidence and that the certificate produced under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 was also "wholly unreliable.
Section 65 (B) (1) of Information Technology Act, 2000 provides that: Any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original.
Section 65(B) (4) of Information Technology Act, 2000 states that, for the purpose of admissibility of evidence, a certification shall have the following matters as necessary:
- Identifying the relevant electronic records relating to the certificate and describing the manner in which it was produced
- Details of the device producing it.
- Satisfying the conditions of 65B(2) i.e. the computer from which the output was produced was used regularly to store or process information during its regular course of activities and throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly.
- Certification of matters are to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person signing the certificate i.e., the officer in charge of the operation or management of the related activities
She further submitted that in present case newspaper reports was relied as evidence, and that the same could not classify as "good evidence". She further added that, "You can't pick up a newspaper and say this is good evidence. No newspaper is good evidence, it's not a matter of public record."
Per contra, Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa appearing for Manish Sisodia pressed that the certificate produced in the matter did not suffer from any anomaly and was very well valid under Section 65(B) of Information Technology Act, 2000.
He further relied on a judgment by the High Court and argued that it was settled law that this Certificate could be submitted at any stage.
He also argued that the accused persons had not denied at any stage that the press conference had in fact taken place, and if there indeed was any corruption, the accused persons should have filed a criminal complaint.
Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa appeared for Manish Sisodia in the matter, while senior standing counsel Rahul Mehra represented the state. On the other hand, senior lawyer Pinki Anand and Sonia Mathur represented Manoj Tiwari and Vijender Gupta respectively.
.webp)
