Two election petitions were filed by the present Respondents before the Bombay High Court challenging the election of the present Appellant, namely, Shri Arjun Panditrao Khotkar to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly for the term commencing November, 2014.  The entirety of the case before the High Court had revolved around four sets of nomination papers that had been filed by the Appellant. It was the case of the present Respondents that each set of nomination papers suffered from defects of a substantial nature and that, therefore, all four sets of nomination papers, having been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer of the Election Commission and the election of the Appellant be declared void. In particular, it was the contention of the present Respondents that the late presentation of Nomination Form inasmuch as they were filed by the RC after the stipulated time of 3.00 p.m. on 27.09.2014, hence such nomination forms not being filed in accordance with the law, and ought to have been rejected.

the Respondents sought to rely upon video-camera arrangements that were made both inside and outside the office of the Returning Officer (RO). According to the Respondents, the nomination papers were only offered at 3.53 p.m. (i.e. beyond 3.00 p.m.), as a result of which it was clear that they had been filed out of time. A specific complaint making this objection was submitted by Shri Kailash Kishanrao Gorantyal before the RO on 28.09.2014 at 11.00 a.m., in which it was requested that the RO reject the nomination forms that had been improperly accepted. This request was rejected by the RO on the same day, stating that the nomination forms had, in fact, been filed within time. the High Court, by its order dated 16.03.2016, ordered the Election Commission and the concerned officers to produce the entire record of the election of this Constituency, including the original video recordings. A specific order was made that this electronic record needs to be produced along with the ‘necessary certificates’. The Court held that the CDs that were produced by the Election Commission could not be treated as an original record and would, therefore, have to be proved by means of secondary evidence. Finding that no written certificate as is required by Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act was furnished by any of the election officials.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. ( CA No. 20825-20826 of 2017 14.07.2020 )