CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court: Video with Valid 65B Certificate Is Admissible Without Transcript or Witness Playback

Apex court sets aside Bombay High Court’s retrial order in NDPS case, says transcript not mandatory for video evidence

Judgment clarifies Section 65B requirements; stresses appellate courts can seek clarifications without ordering retrial

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi, September 17, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a video recording accompanied by a valid certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is admissible in court without the need for a transcript or for it to be played during the testimony of each witness shown in it.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment on September 15, 2025, in an appeal arising from a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case involving the alleged recovery of ganja in Maharashtra.

The ruling overturns a Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) order from October 25, 2024, which had directed a retrial on the grounds that the video recording of the search and seizure operation was not transcribed or explained by witnesses during their depositions.

Background of the Case

The case involved the seizure of nearly 147 kg of ganja from two locations in Maharashtra. The trial court, on April 29, 2023, convicted two accused — including appellant Kailash s/o Bajirao Pawar — and acquitted two others.

During the trial, the prosecution produced a compact disc (CD) containing a video recording of the search and seizure. The author of the video testified that he had recorded it and provided the mandatory Section 65B(4) certificate, which authenticates electronic records for admissibility.

The trial court noted that the video was played in court in the presence of the accused, their lawyers, the prosecution, and the presiding judge, who could confirm the presence of the accused and witnesses at the scene.

However, the Bombay High Court ordered a retrial, reasoning that:

The video was not played during the deposition of each witness.
No transcript of the video was prepared.
Without explanatory statements from witnesses, the contents could not be understood.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s reasoning “strange and unacceptable.” It clarified several important points:

Video Evidence Is Like a Document
- A CD is an electronic record. Once the requirements of Section 65B are met, the video becomes admissible like any other document.
- The video’s contents can be seen and heard by the court to draw inferences, without needing a transcript in the words of a witness.
Transcript Not Mandatory
- There is no legal requirement that a video must be reduced to a transcript for it to be admissible.
- While explanatory statements may sometimes be necessary to understand a video, this depends on the facts of the case.
Role of Appellate Courts
- If an appellate court has difficulty understanding a video, it can summon the accused, witnesses, or lawyers to explain its significance.
- Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows appellate courts to take additional evidence if needed — without ordering a full retrial.
Chemical Examiner’s Report
- Under Section 293 CrPC, a chemical examiner’s report is admissible without the examiner being called as a witness, though the court may summon them if necessary.
- There is no blanket requirement to produce the chemical examiner in every NDPS case.
Non-Production of Contraband
- Failure to produce the entire seized contraband in court is not fatal if there is reliable evidence of seizure, proper sampling, and a valid forensic report.
- Documents under Section 52A of the NDPS Act — such as inventories and sample preparation records — must be on record to avoid adverse inferences.

Why the High Court Was Wrong

The Supreme Court stressed that the High Court did not dispute the existence of a valid Section 65B certificate. Despite this, it wrongly concluded that admissibility depended on each witness explaining the video during their testimony.

The bench observed that the trial court had already played the video in open court, fulfilling the purpose of corroborating oral testimony. Ordering a retrial solely to “explain” the video was unnecessary and contrary to procedural law.

Outcome of the Appeal

The Supreme Court:

Set aside the Bombay High Court’s retrial order.
Restored the appeals against conviction to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits within six months.
Directed that appellant Kailash remain on bail during the appeal.
Allowed the co-accused 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 examined all the evidence on record, underscoring the need for a fresh appellate review.

Legal Significance of the Judgment

This ruling provides much-needed clarity on the admissibility of electronic evidence in India:

Strengthens Section 65B Jurisprudence: Confirms that once the statutory requirements are met, electronic records like videos are admissible without additional procedural hurdles.
Prevents Unnecessary Retrials: Emphasises that appellate courts should use their powers under Section 391 CrPC to clarify evidence rather than sending cases back for retrial.
Guidance for NDPS Cases: Clarifies that non-production of bulk contraband or the chemical examiner is not automatically fatal if other statutory safeguards are met.

Expert Reactions

Legal experts have welcomed the judgment as a step towards streamlining the use of electronic evidence in trials.

Senior criminal lawyer Ramesh Gupta said, “This decision will prevent delays caused by unnecessary retrials and will help courts focus on the substance of evidence rather than procedural technicalities.”

Cyber law specialist Anita Sharma noted, “The Court has reinforced that technology should aid justice, not become a barrier through over-technical interpretations.”

Case Details

Case Title: Kailash s/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra
Decision Date: September 15, 2025
Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan
High Court Order Challenged: Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), October 25, 2024
Trial Court Judgment: April 29, 2023

In summary:

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a video recording with a valid Section 65B certificate is admissible without a transcript or playback during each witness’s testimony. The decision overturns a retrial order in an NDPS case, streamlines the use of electronic evidence, and reinforces the principle that courts should focus on the merits rather than procedural overreach.