Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: hard disc in (1) Ca No.74/17 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 24 November, 2017Matching Fragments
14. During investigation, search of the office of accused Mohinder Kumar Magon, Director of M/s Swati Housing Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. at 82, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, was conducted and from there, three computer harddiscs were seized and the data/documents available in them were scanned and they were also got examined by the Computer Forensic Expert of CFSL, New Delhi and the relevant documents pertaining to the case were retrieved from them. From the said harddiscs, the application for change of address of the Society, letter dated 17.08.2000, vide which the forged affidavit of Sh. R. S. Pillay were forwarded to the RCS office, letter dated 18.08.2000 vide which the fake list of the members of Defence Accounts Employees Co operative Group Housing Society Ltd. as on 31.03.2000 was forwarded to the RCS office etc., were retrieved. From the said harddiscs, the list of another Cooperative Group Housing Society namely Ram Jas Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. was also recovered and in that list also, the names of Sh. Tribhuvan, Devki Nandan, Komal Ram, Jagdish Ram, Rakesh Kumar, Raj Kumar, Chander Prakash, R. K. Sharma, Nirmala Devi, Sita Ram CA No.74/17, 80/17, 81/17 & 84/17 Page No. 12 of 80 Puri, Jagdish Lal, Pritama Devi, Bali Ram Bharti, Raj Kumar Saluja, Ram Dhan Sharma, Sudesh Kumar are figuring. Thus, the names of the above mentioned fake members were taken from the list of Ram Jas Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and pasted in the list of Defence Accounts Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. by accused R. C. Mishra and Mohinder Kumar Magon for the purpose of illegal revival of the Society.
68. Let me turn to the recovery of harddiscs of computer. In this regard, there are allegedly two independent recovery witnesses namely PW25 and PW50. PW25 in his examination in chief deposed that for conducting search, CBI team including him, reached the office of Swati Housing Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and one of the Directors of the Company was present during the search and that apart from some documents, three computer harddiscs were seized from the said office which were sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW10/A. In his crossexamination, he replied that two harddiscs were recovered from two computers while one disc was recovered from inside the room but the same was not attached to any computer. He could not tell which of the disc was taken from the computers and which was taken from the room. However, PW50 has another story to tell about the said recovery. He says in his crossexamination that one person accompanying the CBI team, took out these harddiscs from the computers and he did not recollect as to whether the harddiscs were recovered from the different computers and he volunteered that there is normally one harddisc in one computer and there CA No.74/17, 80/17, 81/17 & 84/17 Page No. 59 of 80 were 23 computers in that office. He further replied that computers from which the said three harddiscs were taken out were not ON. He could not tell as to how many harddiscs were there in each computer. He admitted that the fact that harddiscs were recovered from the computers is not mentioned either in the search memo Ex.PW10/A or punchnama Ex.PW25/A or his statement Ex.PW50/DA. He could not tell as to in which of the discs, there was no data. He could not tell as to how many printouts were taken out from the computers.
69. PW10, the official of CBI, who was the Incharge of the team of search and seizure, in his crossexamination, answered that he did not take any document from the premises with regard to ownership of the premises by M/s Swati Housing Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. nor he confirmed as to who were operating the computers from which the harddiscs in question were seized. There was no other computer in the office premises apart from the aforesaid computers.
70. From the said deposition of three witnesses, the material contradictions which come on the surface that for PW25, third disc was recovered from the room, whereas, for PW10 and PW50, all the discs were recovered from the computers. As such, even the recovery of harddiscs become doubtful.
71. The Ld. Trial Court rejected the arguments of the present CA No.74/17, 80/17, 81/17 & 84/17 Page No. 60 of 80 appellants that since the harddiscs were produced before the Court, the same were admissible without any certification U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. Be it may so, but we do not know that when the data in the said discs were uploaded or whether the same were contemporary to alleged conspiracy of forging and fabricating the documents because Sh. N. K. Aggarwal of CFSL, who examined the said discs, was never produced before the Court and PW56, the Lab Assistant, proved his signatures on the report given by Sh. N. K. Aggarwal. The Ld. Trial Court has tried to assume role of the computer expert and etechnology by getting the said harddiscs displayed before him and that is why it has not been established by the prosecution that who created the file containing alleged printouts or as to when the said files were created or as to whether the said files were read only files or editable files and as to how many times said files were edited or altered and as such no authenticity of the data stored in said hard discs, the printouts taken in the Court from the said harddiscs, cannot be said to have become admissible in evidence. Moreover, the printouts were simply formats and there is no evidence who typed the same or as to when they were typed and the said formats could not have been used without being duly signed and executed. There is no link of those prints out with any of the appellants.