APHC010287292023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the seventeenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Between: Golla Madhavi and Golla Lingamma and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. O.M.R Law Firm Counsel for the Respondents: 1. R.Chandra Reddy 2. K. Srinivasa Reddy The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the seventeenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1700 of 2023 ...Petitioner Golla Lingamma and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: K. Srinivasa Reddy the following: [3311] Thursday, the seventeenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five ...Petitioner ...Respondents APHC010102682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the seventeenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.647 of 2025 Between: Golla Madhavi and Golla Lingamma and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. G.Sravan Kumar Counsel for the respondents: 1. R. Chandra Reddy The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the seventeenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Revision Petition No.647 of 2025 ...Petitioner Golla Lingamma and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the respondents: following: BSB, J of 2023 & 647 of 2025 [3311] Thursday, the seventeenth day of July, two thousand and twenty five ...Petitioner ...Respondents 3 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.1700 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 03.04.2023, in E.O.P.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandikotkur, by which the Court rejected the objection raised against receiving in evidence photographs, C.D. and certificate issued by Sindhu Digital Flexi printing. b. C.R.P.No.647 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 27.01.2025, dismissing I.A.No.1162 of 2024 in E.O.P.No.1 of 2021, on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nandikotkur, filed by the respondent No.1 under Order VIII, Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P.C. to permit to file additional counter. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: The 1st respondent herein (Smt. Golla Lingamma) filed the election petition in E.O.P. No.1 of 2021 mainly for - a) seizure of the ballot papers for the election conducted for the post of Sarpanch, Grama Panchayat, Bhaskarapuram Village, Jupadu bunglow Mandal; b) declaring the election of the respondent No.1 (Smt.Golla Madhavi, the revision petitioner) as the Sarpanch, Grama Panchayat, Bhaskarapuram Village, Jupadu bunglow Mandal, as invalid; c) declaring that Smt.Golla Lingamma has been duly elected as Sarpanch, Grama Panchayat, Bhaskarapuram 4 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 Village, Jupadu bunglow Mandal, and ordering recounting of votes. 3. The case of G. Lingamma, in brief, is as follows: a. The State Election Commission issued a notification to conduct elections for the Grama Panchayat and its ward members across the state of Andhra Pradesh. The elections for Sarpanch and ward members of Bhaskarapuram Grama Panchayat were held on 17.02.2021. The Sarpanch post was reserved for women (General) for which post G. Lingamma and G. Madhavi contested. The total votes in Bhaskarapuram village were 977, but, 917 votes were polled on 17.02.2021. The election authorities declared 15 votes invalid. Initially, the petitioner was declared as the elected candidate at 19:30, but after a phone call, the 1st respondent was declared the winner at 20:00 hours with a three-vote majority. The petitioner requested a recount multiple times, as allowed by the rules, but, the authorities refused. Supporters of the ruling party threatened the petitioner and her agent, forcing them out of the counting hall. These incidents were recorded on video and reported in the media. The total votes polled for the candidates and invalid votes did not match the total votes cast, indicating discrepancies. The petitioner filed complaints with the District Revenue Officer and the State Election Commissioner on 19.02.2021, but, received no response. 4. G. Madhavi filed a detailed counter affidavit denying all the allegations, including the irregularities and high-handed actions. She specifically denied the allegation that the incidents of threats etc., were recorded by the followers of G. Lingamma in their mobile phones and the video clearly shows that injustice was done to G. Lingamma openly and that the video clearly shows that G. Lingamma demanded for 5 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 recounting and further the same was published in the print media, besides being telecast in the electronic media. 5. During the course of enquiry, when G. Lingamma tendered photographs, C.D. and certificate issued by Sindhu Digital Flexi Printing as the evidence, G. Madhavi objected their receipt in evidence on the ground that the conditions required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act were not duly complied since the certificate does not contain the name of the company of the memory card inserted in the mobile, the capacity of the memory card, where the memory card was raided in the C.D., the name of the electronic device and its capacity. 6. The trial Court overruled the objections holding that the certificate produced by the party is in accordance with Section 65B as the smart phones of several companies do not have any memory card and the contents are stored in the phone itself (as inbuilt) and the certificate indicated that the data was retrieved from the device ‘Redmi Note 9 4G 128 GB’ smart phone having Airtel SIM No.6281310932 and the data was downloaded / retrieved into C.D. in Sindhu Digital Flexi printing. The trial Court further observed that the witness can be cross-examined on the aspects of objections raised. 7. Aggrieved by the order, C.R.P.No.1700 of 2023 was filed. 8. Pending hearing of the revision petition, G. Madhavi filed I.A. No.1162 of 2024 in E.O.P.No.1 of 2021 seeking permission to file additional counter. She stated that after filing of the counters, the original petitioner filed I.A.No.732 of 2022 to submit 15 photographs allegedly taken from a C.D. as evidence. G. Madhavi opposed this application stating these photographs were fake and fabricated, however, the Court allowed the application and subsequently, 6 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 G. Lingamma filed a memo along with a certificate from Sindhu Digital Flexi Printing, Nandikotkur to comply with Section 65B and this memo also was objected by G. Madhavi. Then, when G. Lingamma filed I.A.No.1376 of 2022 to formally receive this certificate, it was opposed claiming that the certificate was created for this case, however, the application was allowed on 18.01.2023 and therefore, C.R.P. No.1700 of 2023 was filed by G. Madhavi. As these developments of filing the photographs, the certificate from Sindhu Digital Flexi Printing, and affidavit of Sri Golla Venkateswarlu took place after filing the initial counter, the petition was filed to permit additional counter to properly address these new documents and contentions summarily as follows: There is no pleading in the main election petition about taking photographs from a C.D. or who recorded the video at the counting center. The electronic evidence presented by the petitioner does not comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The affidavit provided by the deponent fails to include essential details such as the specifications of the mobile device used to record the video, including R.A.M. capacity, mobile version, and memory capacity. The deponent of the affidavit only mentioned the phone (S.I.M.) number and about using an Airtel S.I.M., which is meant for communication and not video recording. Any data, audio and video would be stored in memory card. The person who took photos or video has to give affidavit giving information about the device, such as, R.A.M. and memory capacity, version of the device as per Section 65B. There is no pleading regarding printouts and other digital documents taken from the device and the details of the printer. There is no certificate from the person who converted the digital content into printouts and C.D. Therefore, the photos have no evidentiary value. Further there should be affidavit of 7 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 the person who issued the certificate about giving printouts and the other digital documents. The certificate filed does not mention the date of issuance or the electronic device used to transfer the video to a C.D. or the name of the company of the memory card in the phone and its capacity or the details of the device used to make true copy of the video in the C.D. There is no pleading as how and when the petitioner got the C.D. from B.Venkateswarlu or valid reason for not filing the same at the earliest date or where it was kept. The photographs, the affidavit of Golla Venkateswarlu and the certificate from Sindhu Digital Flexi Printing, Nandikotkur, have no evidentiary value as they do not meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The photographs (15) taken from the C.D. are fake and fabricated; the certificate issued by Sindhu Digital Flexi Printing and the affidavit of the person said to have taken video are created solely to support the petitioner's claims. 9. Opposing the petition, G. Lingamma filed counter admitting about the developments narrated above, but, denying the adverse allegations and further mainly stating that there is no need to file additional counter as these objections were already raised in her previous counters in the main election petition and in I.A.Nos.732 of 2022 and 1376 of 2022 and the order was challenged in C.R.P.No.1700 of 2023 which is pending. 10. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that as there are no additional pleadings taken by Golla Madhavi, there is no necessity to file additional counter. 11. Aggrieved by the order, C.R.P.No.647 of 2025 was filed by G. Madhavi. 8 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that it is necessary to receive the additional counter since the documents sought to be filed cannot be received in evidence and for that purpose, there is no need to take a plea and moreover, the document cannot be admitted in evidence, as objected earlier. With regard to objections to receive the document in evidence, he raised the same pleas as were raised before the trial Court. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein submitted that the party complied the requirement under Section 65B by filing a certificate describing the particulars necessary regarding the inbuilt memory and also about the photographs being developed from such device and moreover, it is not the case that there is no Sindhu Digital Flexi Printing. Therefore, he submitted that there is no need to interfere with the order impugned in the revision petition. 14. With regard to additional counter, he submitted that since there is no additional pleading taken in the original petition, merely because documentary evidence was filed in support of the facts pleaded, there is no need to file additional counter, that too, to raise the same objections as were already raised at the time of marking of documents and answered by the Court. 15. Insofar as the additional counter is concerned, as rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no need to file additional counter to take objections regarding the admissibility of the document as there was no corresponding plea newly brought in the petition and the pleadings have been controverted in the original counter and moreover, the party is at liberty to make oral objections in case of non-compliance of necessary procedure to receive the documentary evidence and in the present 9 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 case, already objections were raised and answered by the trial Court. The order is also under challenge in the revision pending before this Court. 16. The main dispute is with regard to admissibility of these documents in evidence on the ground of non-compliance of requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shafhi Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh1, wherein it was held at paragraph No.4 as follows: 4. On the issue of interpretation of Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act with regard to the admissibility of the electronic evidence it was observed: 12. Accordingly, we clarify the legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced. Such party cannot be required to produce certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies. 13. To consider the remaining aspects, including finalization of the road-map for use of the videography in the crime scene and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), we adjourn the matter to 13th February, 2018. 1 (2018) 5 SCC 311 10 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 In the decision in Tomaso Bruno Vs. State of U.P2., it was held at paragraph No.25 as follows: “25. With the advancement of information technology, scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional level is to pervade the methods of investigation. With the increasing impact of technology in everyday life and as a result, the production of electronic evidence in cases has become relevant to establish the guilt of the accused or the liability of the Defendant. Electronic documents strictu sensu are admitted as material evidence. With the amendment to the Indian Evidence Act in 2000, Sections 65A and 65B were introduced into Chapter V relating to documentary evidence. Section 65A provides that contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65B is complied with. The computer generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65B makes admissible as a document, paper print out of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 65B. Secondary evidence of contents of document can also be led Under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. PW-13 stated that he saw the full video recording of the fateful night in the CCTV camera, but he has not recorded the same in the case diary as 2 (2015) 7 SCC 178 11 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 nothing substantial to be adduced as evidence was present in it.” The decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailesh Kushan Rao3 was also relied. 18. It is settled law that the primary evidence shall be produced as a matter of rule and in case, primary evidence cannot be produced, secondary evidence of it can be produced under the circumstances permitted under law. Since the figures / video were said to be taken by use of a mobile / cell phone, the device itself which stores the electronic data is the primary evidence. All other copies generated therefrom using such data are its secondary evidence. 19. In the present case, the device is said to have inbuilt memory and has no separate memory card. To this extent, there is no controversy. As the said device was not produced and instead, photographs and C.D. were developed from the use of the primary evidence as per Section 65B of the Evidence Act, a certificate is required for admissibility of the secondary evidence so generated. In the present case, the certificate produced has reference to the name of the device and other particulars as noted above. The identity of the device is not disputed by the revision petitioner. The certificate produced refers to the details sufficient to receive the secondary evidence. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in receiving the documents in evidence by overruling the objections raised. To test the genuineness / veracity of the evidence so produced, the revision petitioner can avail the opportunity of cross-examination. At the time of considering the objections regarding admissibility of the documents in evidence, 3 (2020) 7 SCC 1 12 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1700 of 2023 & 647 of 2025 genuineness or veracity of the evidence would not be normally considered, as it is a matter of appreciation of evidence. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the revision petitioner to challenge the order of the trial Court admitting the documents in evidence. 20. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.17.07.2025 RSD / RAR