CyberLaw Academy

Excellence in Cyber Law & Digital Forensics Training

Electronic Evidence Certificate Generator

Section 65B (IEA) / Section 63 (BSA 2023)

Select Applicable Law

Choose the appropriate law based on when the proceeding commenced:

Step 1: Case Details

Legal Requirement: The certificate must identify the specific proceeding for which the electronic evidence is being produced. Incomplete case details may lead to objections regarding the relevance and admissibility of the evidence.

Enter complete case reference number
Name and location of the investigating/filing authority
Complete name and location of the adjudicating court/forum
Parties to the proceeding as appearing on case records
Relevant statutory provisions under which charge is framed
Approximate date when the electronic record was generated

Step 2: Nature of Electronic Record

Legal Requirement: Section 63(4)(a) BSA / Section 65B(4)(a) IEA mandates that the certificate must identify the electronic record containing the statement and describe the manner in which it was produced. Failure to properly describe the electronic record is a fatal defect.

Describe what the record contains and why it is relevant
Start date/time of data in the record
End date/time of data in the record
Technical format of the electronic record
Size of the electronic record
Total count of files/records being certified
For document-type records

Step 3: Source Device Identification

Legal Requirement: Section 63(4)(b) BSA / Section 65B(4)(b) IEA requires particulars of any device involved in the production of the electronic record. The certificate must show that the record was produced by a computer/communication device as defined in Section 63(3) BSA.

Select all applicable device types involved
Unique identifier of the device
Additional unique identifiers specific to the device type
Where the source device is physically located
⚠️ Important: Accurate device identification is crucial. Discrepancies between the device described in the certificate and the actual source device can render the evidence inadmissible. Verify all details before proceeding.

Step 4: Device Ownership & Lawful Control

Legal Requirement: Section 63(2)(a) BSA / Section 65B(2)(a) IEA requires that the electronic record must have been produced during a period when the computer/device was used regularly by a person having LAWFUL CONTROL over its use. This is a mandatory condition for admissibility.

Person or organization having lawful ownership/custody
Select all applicable relationships
Explain the legal basis for accessing the device and data

Mandatory Declarations - System Control

The following declarations correspond to the conditions in Section 63(2) BSA / Section 65B(2) IEA. All must be truthfully affirmed for the certificate to be legally valid.

Understanding "Lawful Control" - Critical Legal Concept

What "Control of Computer" Legally Means:

  • The person/organization must have legitimate authority over the device's operation
  • Control may be direct (personal device) or institutional (through employment/service)
  • For third-party systems (service providers, banks, etc.), control is established through the data controller's lawful authority
  • For outsourced or cloud systems, the certificate should be issued by the person having operational control over data input

⚠️ Caution: If the device/system was operated by a third party (e.g., cloud provider, service provider), ensure the certifying person has actual knowledge of system operations and data handling processes.

Step 5: Method of Data Extraction

Legal Requirement: Section 63(4)(a) BSA / Section 65B(4)(a) IEA requires that the certificate must describe the MANNER in which the electronic record was produced. Failure to explain the extraction methodology is a common ground for challenging certificates.

Provide sufficient detail for a technical person to understand and potentially replicate the process
Name and version of any forensic or extraction tool used
When the data was extracted/retrieved
Medium on which the extracted data is stored/presented

Step 6: Integrity & Non-Tampering Declaration

Legal Requirement: The Schedule to BSA 2023 mandates declaration of HASH values for electronic records. Hash values provide cryptographic assurance of data integrity and are essential for establishing that the evidence has not been tampered with.

Select algorithm(s) used for hash calculation
Cryptographic hash value(s) of the electronic record(s)

Non-Tampering Declaration

Why Hash Values Matter

Hash values serve as digital fingerprints. Even a single bit change in the file will produce a completely different hash value. Courts increasingly expect hash verification to establish:

  • The evidence presented is exactly what was originally extracted
  • No modifications occurred during storage or handling
  • The integrity of the evidence chain

Note: If hash values were not computed at the time of extraction, clearly state this in the certificate and explain what other integrity measures were taken.

Step 7: Review & Generate Certificate

Final Verification: Review all details carefully before generating the certificate. The certificate is a legal document and any false statement may attract prosecution for perjury. The signatory bears full legal responsibility for the accuracy of the certificate.

Final Declarations

When and How Section 63 BSA Expert Certificate is Required

Understanding the Two-Part Certificate System

The Schedule to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 prescribes a two-part certificate format:

Part A - Certificate by Party

This certificate is issued by the party producing the electronic evidence. It is typically signed by the Investigating Officer (in criminal cases), the owner/custodian of the device, or the person responsible for maintaining the computer system from which the electronic record was produced. Part A focuses on establishing:

  • Identification of the source device
  • Lawful control over the device/system
  • Proper operation of the system
  • Regular feeding of information in ordinary course of activities
  • Hash values for integrity verification
Part B - Certificate by Expert

This certificate is issued by an expert, specifically the Examiner of Electronic Evidence appointed under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Part B is required when:

  • The electronic evidence requires forensic examination or analysis
  • The authenticity or integrity of the evidence is in question
  • Technical opinion is needed regarding the production or nature of the electronic record
  • The evidence involves complex technical processes requiring expert interpretation
  • The Court specifically directs expert certification
Who Qualifies as an "Expert" Under BSA?

Under Section 39(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, for matters relating to information transmitted or stored in computer resources or electronic/digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is a relevant fact. Such Examiner is deemed to be an "expert" for the purposes of the Adhiniyam.

The Central Government has notified certain officers as Examiners of Electronic Evidence, including:

  • Officers of the Central/State Forensic Science Laboratories designated for this purpose
  • Officers of government organizations specifically notified by the Central Government
  • Private experts empaneled by forensic laboratories for specific examinations
Practical Court Expectations

In practice, courts have held that:

  • For routine electronic records (CDRs, CCTV footage, bank statements) produced by the custodian/owner, Part A certificate by the person in charge is generally sufficient.
  • When authenticity is challenged, the court may require the evidence to be examined by a Section 79A Examiner who will issue Part B certificate.
  • For forensically examined evidence (recovered deleted data, mobile forensics, malware analysis), expert certification under Part B adds significant evidentiary weight.
  • Combined certificates (Part A + Part B) provide the strongest evidentiary foundation, covering both custody and technical examination aspects.