Welcome to LawTutorial.in – Your Partner in Understanding Law
Join Now

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 93: Presumption as to electronic records five years old

§ SECTION 93 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER V — DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Presumption as to electronic records five years old

The electronic counterpart of § 92 — with a shorter clock. Where an electronic record five years old is produced from proper custody, the Court may presume its electronic signature was affixed by the person it purports to be, or someone he authorised.

How to read Section 93

Old e-record + proper custody → e-signature presumed.

The trigger

Five years old, from proper custody.

The presumption

The e-signature was affixed by the person or his agent.

Proper custody

The § 81 electronic definition.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — the rule and its custody Explanation.

Section 93 · verbatim

Where any electronic record, purporting or proved to be five years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the electronic signature which purports to be the electronic signature of any particular person was so affixed by him or any person authorised by him in this behalf.

Explanation.—The Explanation to section 81 shall also apply to this section.

In short: this is § 92 rewritten for the digital age. Old electronic records, like old paper, are hard to prove by calling the people involved — so the Court is given a discretionary presumption. Where an electronic record five years old (on its face or as proved) is produced from proper custody, the Court may presume that an electronic signature purporting to be a person’s was affixed by him, or by someone he authorised. Two differences from § 92 are worth noting: the qualifying age is only five years (electronic records date far quicker than paper), and ‘proper custody’ is defined by the electronic Explanation of § 81. As ever, the presumption reaches the signature, not the truth of the record’s contents.

→ The electronic counterpart of § 92 (IEA 1872 § 90). It closes Chapter V (Documentary Evidence, §§ 56–93).

Glossary

electronic record

Data recorded or stored in electronic form.

five years old

The qualifying age for e-records — against thirty for paper (§ 92).

proper custody

The § 81 electronic test — legitimate server / keeper / origin.

electronic signature

The mark presumed to have been affixed by the person / his agent.

authorised by him

An agent the person empowered to affix the signature.

may presume

Discretionary — the Court may, or may require proof.

The picture

§ 92 for paper — § 93 for pixels, on a shorter clock.

e-record · 5+ yrs01011from PROPER custody (§ 81)MAYpresume the E-SIGNATUREwas affixed by him / his agentno separate proof of the affixingsignature onlynot the truth ofthe contentspaper § 92 = 30 years  ·  electronic § 93 = 5 yearse-records date faster — but both need proper custody and are discretionary

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

the ruleOld electronic records earn a presumption too

In one lineFor an electronic record five years old or more, produced from proper custody, the Court may presume the electronic signature purporting to be a person’s was affixed by him (or someone he authorised).
1An electronic record5+ years old (orproved to be)2Produced fromcustody the Courtconsiders PROPER3Court MAY presumethe e-signaturewas hisan old e-record (5+ yrs) from the right source is presumed to bear the person’s own e-signature
Where any electronic record, purporting or proved to be five years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper,a 5-yr e-record from PROPER custodywhere an electronic record 5+ years old (purporting or proved) is produced from custody the Court considers proper…
the Court may presume that the electronic signature which purports to be the electronic signature of any particular person was so affixed by him or any person authorised by him in this behalf.MAY presume the e-signature was his (or authorised)…the Court may presume the electronic signature purporting to be a person’s was affixed by him (or someone he authorised).
ExampleA digitally-signed document six years old, produced from the department’s own records, may be presumed to bear the electronic signature of the person it purports to — no separate proof of the affixing.
✗ Not this‘May presume’ is discretionary and needs proper custody. Note the clock is only five years (not thirty, as for paper — § 92). It presumes the signature was his / authorised — not the truth of the record’s contents.

the Explanation + the pairingThe electronic twin of § 92 — with a shorter clock

In one line§ 93 mirrors § 92 for electronic records, but the age is five years, not thirty. ‘Proper custody’ borrows § 81’s electronic definition.
§ 92 — PAPER document30 years oldproper custody — § 80§ 93 — ELECTRONIC record5 years oldproper custody — § 81§ 92 (paper, 30 years, custody § 80) is mirrored by § 93 (electronic, 5 years, custody § 81).
Explanation.– The Explanation to section 81 shall also apply to this section.‘proper custody’ = the § 81 definition‘proper custody’ here means what § 81’s Explanation says — the electronic proper-custody test (right server / keeper, or a legitimate / probable origin).
a shorter clock5 years, not 30because e-records date faster, the threshold is five years — against thirty for paper (§ 92).
proper custody — § 81the electronic test‘proper custody’ is the § 81 electronic definition (right server / keeper, or a legitimate origin).
signature, not contentswhat is presumedit presumes the e-signature was affixed by the person / his agent — not the truth of what the record says.
ExampleA five-year-old signed PDF kept in the company’s document-management system may be presumed to bear the maker’s e-signature — the Court need not have the affixing separately proved.
✗ Not thisThe shorter five-year period reflects how quickly e-records age — but the discipline is the same: proper custody and a discretionary presumption, going only to the signature.

Connected provisions

§ 92

Old documents (30 yrs)

The paper twin — § 93 is its electronic version at 5 years.

§ 81

Proper custody (e-records)

Its Explanation defines proper custody here.

§ 86

Secure records & signatures

Where security yields presumptions — the neighbouring rule.

§ 94 · next

Terms reduced to a document

Chapter V closes here; § 94 opens the next chapter.