There are two ways to prove that the document was produced by the computer in the course of it's ordinary use .
-it may be proved by the production of the certificate as required by subsection (2) may- permissive not mandatory . Also subsection (4) -begins with the words - where a certificate
is given under subsection (2) -shows cerificate does not have to be given in every case.
-It may be proved by calling be a witness - if this is done it is not necessary to also produce a certificate - Gnanasegaran.
Here Z the person in charge of the operation of the current accounts testified that the statement of accounts were computer printouts . Hence there was no necessity for a certificate . A certificate need only be tendered if an officer like Z is not called to testify that the statement is produced by computer .
Per Mahadev shanker - s90A (1) is an updating of the 'best evidence rule' with the realities or the elcronic age , and it is no longger necessary to call the actual treller or bank clerk who keyed in the data provided he did so in the course of the ordinary use of the computer .
Standard Chartered Bank Mukah Singh ( High court ) -evidence was given by the witnesses that those documents were computer generated and they were produced in the course of the ordinary use of the computer . There was no challenge to this evidence. since there is this unchalenged evidence, it becomes unnecessary to produce the certificate under s90A(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 to prove that the documents were produced by a computer in the cours of its ordinary use . it is only where it is disputed,during the time the evidence was adduced , as to whether the documents were produced by a computer in the course of its ordinary use - which is not in issue here - would such a certificate then become necessary .
Schmidr Scientifc Sdn Bhd Ong Han Suan - the defense submitted , inter alia , that the computer printout in the plaintiff's bundle of documents was inadmissible as no certificate as required under section 90A(2) of the Ea was tendered before the court , although such a certificate was tendered when the managing director of the plaintiff took the stand .
Held - the objection was improper ands misleading - since the managing director of the plaintiff has tendered by consent the certificate required under s90A(2) of the Act during trial and the certificate together with computer exhibits.
PP Ong Cheng Heong - on the facts the person who tendered the computer printouts only introduced himself as the supervisor of the registration department of vihicles in the RIMV perlis and did not claim any responsibility for the conduct of the activities for which the relevant computer was used .
Recent Cases - See PP Datuk Hj.Sahar Arpan - the computer printouts relating to the banking transactions had been properly tendered by the prosecution and were admissible in evidence . Even though
the same were many times removed from the first produce of the initial computer . the on-line system of the relevant institutions ensured the authenticity of the data as no information had been tampered .

Why should you donate?
If you think this little editor is useful to you, then it's a good reason to do a donation.
Your gratitude and finance help will motivate us to continue Nurkimedia project development.
Donate now!