A single Judge of Karnataka High Court held that, non-filing of certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to mark the electronic evidence is a curable defect and at any time during the trail a certificate can be produced.

From Para 6,

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that non-filing of certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to markthe electronic evidence is a curable defect. It is not that the document would not be entertainable at all, as at any time duringthe trail a certificate can be produced. He would contend that the petitioner has indulged in heinous act of sexual assault on the student, who was at that point in time 14 years old, being her teacher. Therefore, this Court on any ground should not interfere with the orders that are passed by the concerned Court, which are in tune with law and not contrary to law.

From Para 9,

The objection is that the CD could not have been marked in evidence, as there is no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and if there is no such certificate it does not become an evidence and, therefore, marking of compact disc should be rejected. In the light of the objection so made by the petitioner, the prosecution filed additional charge sheet and appended this video along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act citing it as additional material to be marked through PWs-1, 2 and 3. Here again the petitioner objects contending that the certificate under Section 65-B is not by the Competent Authority.

From Paras 11 and 12,

The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgments, would hold that electronic evidence can be marked at any time during the trial. The certificate under Section 65-B can be produced, which would neither vitiate the trial conducted on the basis of the electronic evidence nor enure to the benefit of the accused, to contend that no proceedings should be permitted to be proceeded further on the marking of the electronic evidence. The Apex Court in the case of T. NASEER supra has clearly held that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., is in the statute only for this purpose, as it is a voyage towards discovery of truth. Under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., marking of document, examination, re-examination, cross-examination and further cross-examination can take place. Therefore, the first glorified submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner tumbles down, as the evidence that is let in being the compact disc, without attaching to it a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, does not and did not vitiate the proceedings.
12. It appears that due to serious objection of the petitioner, the prosecution took recourse to another route of marking it by way of supplementary charge sheet. In fact what is produced is not a supplementary charge sheet after further investigation as is done in the normal parlance. It is termed as supplementary charge sheet, but what it appends to it is only the compact disc, with the certificate under Section 65-B. This cannot give a right in favour of the petitioner to contend that after the commencement of evidence there cannot be production of supplementary charge sheet. While
there can be no quarrel about the contention of the petitioner that once evidence would commence after framing of charges, there cannot be a supplementary charge sheet, as that right ceases or freezes in favour of the prosecution, the day charges are framed. Alteration of charge can happen at any time during the trial under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., but not an additional charge sheet. In the case at hand, it is not an additional charge sheet or a supplementary charge sheet. Only the compact disc is marked along with the certificate, that too because the petitioner objected contending that the compact disc could not be marked without Section 65-B certificate. The submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader overpowers what the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended, as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner runs counter to what the Apex Court has held in the judgments supra.