Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

d. The seized DVD was RW drive i.e. re-
writable and thus when seized, the same should be attributed with hash value and seizure should be done with declaration / certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When a RW drive is copied, a new hash value is created. In that case, it is crucial evidence to know the hash value of original DVD at the time of its seizure, which was not done by DRI on 29.07.2016.

e. Forensic copy of seized DVD was prepared by DRI in their Office on 18.01.2017 and relied upon as RUD-

f. Thereafter, the appellant was forced to utilize the services of M/s Truth Labs, Kolkata in order to ascertain the number of files/folders in its master folder DOC to confirm the veracity/authenticity of the seized DVD. Expert Opinion of Forensic Experts of M/s Truth Labs, Kolkata clearly prove that the DVD relied upon [RUD-58] contains 44 files/folders in master folder DOC having modification time as 02:30:26 hrs, dated 29.07.2016. It shows that files were Appeal No.: C/75713/2025-DB either deleted or altered or tampered. It also confirms that the hash value of DVD having 45 files/folders will be different to the hash value of DVD having 44 files/folders. Thus, the aspect of using forged means by DRI is apparent.

(Emphasis supplied) 20.4. From the findings recorded by the Ld. adjudicating authority reproduced above, we find that after analyzing the Annexure to the Panchnama dated 29.07.2016 and other documents associated with the DVD, he has come to the conclusion that the DVD should not be treated as evidence in this case. We do not find any reason to disagree with this finding of the Ld. adjudicating authority.

20.5. Further, we also find force in the submission made by the appellant in this regard that data cannot be transferred directly from one DVD to another DVD. It requires burning tools in the form of external software to burn data into the DVD. It is observed that the seized DVD in this case was a 'RW' drive i.e. re- writable and thus when seized, the same should be attributed with hash value and seizure should be done with declaration / certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When a RW drive is copied, Appeal No.: C/75713/2025-DB a new hash value is created. In that case, it is crucial evidence to know the hash value of original DVD at the time of its seizure, which was not done by DRI on 29.07.2016. We observe that the Forensic copy of seized DVD was prepared by DRI in their Office on 18.01.2017 and relied upon as RUD-58. Another DVD [not the seized DVD] containing 20 audio files was sent to CFSL, Chandigarh for forensic analysis of 20 voice clips only, as reflected from the RTI Reply dated 13.12.2022 received from CFSL, Chandigarh.

20.6. The appellant has claimed that the forensic copy of the DVD prepared on 18.01.2017 had hundreds of voice clips. DRI has obtained the forensic report selectively from CFSL, Chandigarh. Further, DRI had never asked CFSL, Chandigarh Authorities to find out the creation time and matching of seized DVD with Annexure to the Panchanama dated 29.07.2016 in order to ascertain the number of files/folders in its master folder, DOC, to confirm the veracity/authenticity of the seized DVD. In fact, the submission of the appellant is that in spite of repeated requests by him, no such expert opinion was provided. Thereafter, the appellant was forced to utilize the services of M/s Truth Labs, Kolkata in order to ascertain the number of files/folders in its master folder "DOC" to confirm the veracity/authenticity of the seized DVD. We have gone through the Expert Opinion of Forensic Experts of M/s. Truth Labs, Kolkata submitted by the appellant, which proves that the DVD relied upon [RUD-58] contains 44 files/folders in master folder "DOC" having modification time as 02:30:26 hrs, dated 29.07.2016. It shows that files were either deleted or altered or tampered. It also confirms that the hash value of DVD having 45 files/folders will be different to the hash Appeal No.: C/75713/2025-DB value of DVD having 44 files/folders. Admittedly, the appellant had made repeated requests to DRI to provide the forensic copy of the original DVD which contained 45 files/folders in master folder DOC, but it has not been provided. DRI has not given any reason for this difference in number of files. Thus, it has been submitted before us by the appellant that the DVD which has been made RUD is not the one which was recovered from the premises of M/s Spak Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.