Supreme Court Clarifies: Video with 65B Certificate Is Admissible, No Mandatory Transcript

The Supreme Court on September 15, 2025 held that a compact disc is an electronic record and once the requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied, such video evidence becomes admissible like a document. The Court clarified that the video recorded therein is akin to the contents of a document which can be seen and heard by the court to draw appropriate inferences.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan said it is not the requirement of law that the contents of a video will be admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the video. The Court observed that although there may be cases where explanatory statements are required to appreciate a video, such necessity depends on the facts of the case.

The judgment came in an appeal filed by Kailash challenging the Bombay High Court’s order directing a re-trial in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act relating to the alleged recovery of ganja. The High Court had directed a re-trial on the ground that although a video recording of the search and seizure operation existed, it was not made admissible as it was neither played during the deposition of each witness nor converted into a transcript. The High Court further held that without explanatory statements by witnesses, the contents of the video could not be understood.

The Supreme Court held this reasoning to be erroneous. It noted that the author of the video had deposed that he recorded it and furnished the certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which was sufficient to render the CD admissible in evidence. The Court said the High Court did not dispute that the electronic record was duly exhibited with a valid certificate but nonetheless opined that admissibility depended on each witness explaining the video in their deposition. The bench termed this view unacceptable.

The Supreme Court observed that in the present case the prosecution sought to prove the search and seizure through oral evidence of witnesses, with the video serving a corroborative purpose. It noted the trial court judgment recorded that the video was played in court in the presence of the accused, their counsel, the prosecution and the presiding officer, and that the court could confirm the presence of the accused and witnesses at the scene. It therefore held that a re-trial was not necessary merely for explaining the video.

The bench further pointed out that if the High Court, sitting in appellate jurisdiction, faced difficulty in appreciating the contents of the video, it could have summoned the accused, witnesses or their lawyers to assist in explaining its significance. It added that Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides power to take additional evidence, which could have been exercised if required. However, there was no justification for ordering a re-trial and fresh recording of evidence merely to understand the video.

The Court also rejected the High Court’s objection that the Chemical Examiner was not produced in the case. It referred to Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which makes the report of a Chemical Examiner admissible even without his examination as a witness, though the court has the discretion to summon him. The bench clarified there is no legal requirement that the Chemical Examiner must be called in every NDPS case.

On the issue of non-production of the seized contraband, the Court held that such non-production may not be fatal if reliable evidence is available regarding its seizure, the drawing of samples, and the forensic report. The bench said documents prepared under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, evidencing the preparation of inventory and drawing of samples, must be placed on record to avoid adverse inference. It stressed that samples sent to the forensic laboratory must be sealed and the seal verified as intact to dispel doubts of tampering, and that the FSL report with the tested sample should be produced in court. The Court also rejected the High Court’s objection that the representative sample was not opened before the court during witness testimony, holding this was not a ground to direct retrial when the appellate court had powers under Section 391 CrPC.

The Supreme Court concluded that the direction for a re-trial could not be sustained. It restored the appeals against conviction before the High Court for fresh consideration within six months. The appellant was directed to remain on bail during pendency of the appeal and the co-accused was allowed to apply for suspension of sentence before the High Court. The Court also noted that neither the trial court nor the High Court had comprehensively considered the entire evidence on record.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order of October 25, 2024, and restored the appeals to the High Court for fresh decision. The trial court had earlier on April 29, 2023 convicted Kailash and another accused while acquitting two others in the ganja recovery case.

Case Title: Kailash S/o Bajirao Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra

Decision Date: September 15, 2025

Coram: Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan