107 also signed into it and many DVD/CD were seized. In K. Ramajayam vs Inspector of Police 2016 Cr LJ 1542 (Mad) it was held that “Madras High Court was called upon to decide whether articles like Memory Card, Hard Disc, CD, Pen-Drive etc. Containing relevant data in electronic form are documents within the meaning of Sec. 3 of the Evidence Act”. Ld. Special PP relied upon the judgment Shamsher Singh Verma Vs State of Haryana 2005(12) Scale 597: 2015 AIR SCW 6434 where it was held that “CD is a ‘document’ within meaning of Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”. So, the CD or the DVD as the case may be which were produced at the time of trial are within the meaning of section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. In another judgment Shamsher Singh vs State of Haryana 2016 Cr LJ 364 (SC) it was held that “In view of the definition of ‘document’ in sec. 3 of the Evidence Act, the compact disc is also a document. It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on a Cr PC personally from the accused or complainant or the witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made by the counsel for defence, on the document filed by the prosecution or on the application/report with which same is filed, is sufficient compliance of section 294 Cr PC.”. In this case some certificates u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act were no collected during investigation stage. It was held in Kundan Singh vs State (MANU/DE/3674/2015) that “The certification is not obtained at the time of collection of evidence, yet, at the time of trial, evidence aliunde can be given through the person who was in charge of the server, in terms of Sec. 65B of the Act, as held by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court”. Thus even though some of the certificates u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act which were not collected at the time of investigation are proper in the eyes of law. In Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others (2014) 10 SCC 473 it was held that “Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B”. In this present case proper certificates had been issued by the witnesses who had either taken screen shots or taking photographs and video and burnt in CD or DVD or even downloaded the contents of the email and later on taking print outs. Thus all the certificates u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence which are produced in