Electronic Evidence in Post-2018 Corruption Cases: Recordings, Chats and Section 63 BSA

Modern corruption investigations rely on call recordings, messaging applications, CCTV, spreadsheets, location data and digital payment trails. Their persuasive force depends on lawful collection, authenticity and proof.

Section 63 BSA

For proceedings governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 63 supplies the framework for admissibility of electronic records, corresponding broadly to former Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The transition date and proceeding must be checked before selecting the governing statute.

Certificate and source

The party relying on a computer output should identify the device or system, manner of production, regular use and integrity through the prescribed certificate. Original-device production and statutory exceptions require case-specific analysis.

Voice identification

A recorded demand requires proof of speaker identity, completeness and absence of tampering. Transcript accuracy, language, surrounding context and forensic comparison may be contested. A short excerpt should not be isolated from a conversation that changes its meaning.

Chain of custody

Investigators should document seizure, imaging, hash values, storage, access and copies. Screenshots without source data are vulnerable where metadata or authenticity is disputed.

Electronic evidence can prove demand circumstantially under Neeraj Dutta, but technology does not remove foundational proof. The court must still connect the communication, advantage, public duty and accused.

Sources

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 63: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/20063

Supreme Court of India, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1.

Supreme Court of India, Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731.

#PreventionOfCorruptionAct #ElectronicEvidence #BSA