Section 85C IEA – The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 –PRESUMPTION AS TO ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE CERTIFICATES
1[SECTION 85C PRESUMPTION AS TO 2[ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE CERTIFICATES]:-The Court shall presume, unless contrary is proved, that the information listed in a 2[Electronic Signature Certificate] is correct, except for information specified as subscriber information, which has not been verified, if the certificate was accepted by the subscriber.]
1. Ins. by Act 21 of 2000, s. 92, and the Second Schedule (w.e.f. 17-10-2000).
2. Subs. by Act 10 of 2009, s. 52(f), for “Digital Signature Certificate” (w.e.f. 27.10.2009).
Following are the ingredients of Section 85C :-
i) The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney,
ii) It have been executed before and authenticated by
(a) A Notary Public, (b) any Court, (c) Judge, (d) Magistrate, (e) Indian Consul, (f) Vice-Consul or (g) representative of the Central Government.
iii) It was so executed and authenticated.
- The Court shall presume the due execution and authentication of a power-of-attorney when executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice- Consul, etc.
- The Court can presume that Notary Public must have satisfied himself about the competence of the executant. Presumption applies not merely to local notaries but also those functioning aboard. [Yogesh Singh Sohta v. Niranjan Lal, AIR 1981 (Delhi) 144]
- Power-of-attorney includes any instruments empowering a specified person to act for any in the name of the person executing it. [Vide – Indian Stamp Act, Section 2(1)]
- The mere fact that the document had not been drafted or typed out by the executant before the Notary Public and the fact that the typed matter duly signed by the executant was presented before the Notary Public did not in any way make the execution and authentication doubtful. [Raj Kumar Gupta v. Des Raj, AIR 1995 HP.]