Electronic Records in Financial-Fraud Cases: Section 63 BSA, the Certificate, and the Transition Rule

In a financial-fraud prosecution, the decisive material may be a bank-generated statement, an e-mail trail, an exported chat, a cloud record, a CCTV extract, or data retrieved from a device. The evidentiary question is not resolved merely because a file can be opened or printed. Practitioners must identify the governing evidence statute, the route by which the particular electronic record is being tendered, and the statutory foundation required for that route.

For matters governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), Sections 61 to 63 and the Schedule require early attention. The change is especially important in cases where a large investigation produces multiple exports, copies and device-generated reports.

First question: which evidence law applies?

The BSA came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 170(1) repeals the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), but Section 170(2) preserves the former law for an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal that was pending immediately before commencement. Such a pending matter is to be dealt with under the IEA as it stood immediately before the BSA came into force.

This makes the transition enquiry factual and procedural. The alleged date of the offence may matter for substantive and procedural questions, but it does not by itself answer the Section 170 issue. The practitioner should identify the status of the particular investigation, inquiry, trial, proceeding or appeal immediately before 1 July 2024, and place the relevant order sheets and dates on record where necessary.

For a saved matter, the former IEA framework—including Section 65B and the authorities construing it—continues to be directly relevant. For a matter governed by the BSA, the starting point is the text of the BSA, not an assumption that every earlier Section 65B proposition transfers unchanged.

The BSA structure: Sections 61, 62 and 63

Section 61 says that an electronic or digital record is not to be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic or digital, while making that proposition subject to Section 63. Section 62 then provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with Section 63.

Section 63 is the operative provision for a computer output. It treats qualifying information that is printed, stored, recorded or copied in the stated electronic forms as a document where the statutory conditions are satisfied. Its conditions concern regular use of the computer or communication device by a person having lawful control, regular feeding of the relevant information in the ordinary course, proper operation during the material period (or the absence of an effect on the record or its accuracy), and a record that reproduces or is derived from information so fed.

In a commercial or fraud investigation, the phrase “electronic evidence” is too general to do the work. A bank’s server export, an investigator’s copy of a handset, a screenshot produced by a witness, and a cloud-platform response may each raise different source, control, extraction and certification questions. The record proposed to be exhibited must be identified precisely.

The certificate is part of the evidentiary plan

Section 63(4) provides that, where a statement is to be given in evidence by virtue of that section, a certificate is to be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is submitted for admission. The certificate must identify the electronic record and describe how it was produced; give appropriate particulars of the relevant device; and address the conditions in Section 63(2). The provision refers to a certificate signed by the appropriate person in charge of the computer or communication device or the relevant activities, and an expert.

The statutory Schedule is correspondingly detailed. Part A records the source category, device particulars such as serial number or relevant identifier, the basis of lawful control and regular use, and the hash value with the algorithm used; it calls for the hash report to be enclosed. Part B is designated for the expert and also records source and hash particulars. This is a prescribed evidentiary form, not a substitute for proof of relevance, authorship, integrity or the fact in issue.

The practical implication is straightforward: preserve the acquisition record and the record of each later export. A certificate cannot responsibly be treated as an afterthought when the exhibit has travelled through several devices, applications or custodians. The party tendering it should be able to explain what the exhibit is, where it came from, how it was generated or extracted, and what the certificate is certifying.

What Arjun Panditrao still contributes—and its limit

In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, decided on 14 July 2020, a three-Judge Bench interpreted the former Section 65B of the IEA. It distinguished the original electronic record stored in the relevant computer from a computer output used as evidence of its contents, and addressed the certificate requirement for the latter route. The judgment is central for matters saved by Section 170(2).

The subsequent decision in State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer, 2023 INSC 988, decided on 6 November 2023, applied that distinction in a pending IEA trial. It also confirms that a court’s approach to a later certificate must account for the stage of the trial and fair-trial prejudice. Those decisions should not be cited as though they dispense with reading the BSA’s Section 63 and Schedule in a BSA-governed matter.

A focused record-review checklist

1. Fix the governing statute. Determine whether Section 170(2) preserves the IEA for the matter. 2. Define the proposed exhibit. Identify the precise file, output, device source, custodian and extraction event. 3. Separate admissibility from weight. A statutory certificate does not by itself prove the authorship, truth, relevance or reliability of every assertion within a record. 4. Check the Section 63 foundation. Map each condition to material that can be proved, including lawful control, ordinary-course input, device operation and derivation. 5. Complete the Schedule carefully. Check source particulars, applicable device identifiers, signer capacity, expert particulars, hash information and the enclosure of the hash report. 6. Preserve challenge points fairly. Where the integrity, source, authorship or extraction process is disputed, frame the issue against the actual exhibit and record rather than relying on a generic objection to “digital evidence”.

Conclusion

The BSA does not make every electronic file self-proving. It provides a statutory route for admissibility of qualifying computer outputs, with a detailed certificate and Schedule. In financial-fraud litigation, the strongest practice is to build the electronic-evidence record from acquisition onward, while keeping the Section 170 transition question separate from the merits of the allegation.

This article is for general legal education and is not advice on an individual matter.

Sources checked

- [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Act 47 of 2023—official India Code text, especially Sections 61–63, 170 and the Schedule](https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/bitstream/123456789/20063/1/aa202347.pdf) - [Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, Supreme Court of India, 14 July 2020, (2020) 7 SCC 1](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/39058/39058_2017_34_1501_22897_Judgement_14-Jul-2020.pdf) - [State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer, Supreme Court of India, 6 November 2023, 2023 INSC 988](https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/19800/19800_2022_11_1504_48074_Judgement_06-Nov-2023.pdf)

Accuracy and ethics preflight

- Primary statutory and Supreme Court sources were checked. No editorial source was copied or relied on. - No judicial quotation is used. The discussion distinguishes the BSA route from the former IEA framework preserved for matters covered by Section 170(2). - The article is educational, non-solicitous, and does not comment on a client, case result or pending matter.

#BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam #ElectronicEvidence #FinancialFraud