Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Many startling facts have been revealed in the present affidavit. It has been stated that one external hard disc was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and was sent for FSL examination. However, the seizure report shows that the hard disc was made in China, whereas, the FSL report shows that hard disc was made in Philippines. The returned hard disc, after FSL examination, shows that the hard disc is made in China. Thereafter, an explanation has been given by the FSL that it was a mistake and actually the external cover of the hard disc shows that it is made in China but its internal parts show that they are made in Philippines.

The report which has been appended goes to show several photographs and information regarding bomb defusal process and how to pull the pin etc and information and photographs of several weapons of different countries are there in the hard disc. Apart from his bio-data and passport, details of the petitioner.

But the significant point which has been raised by the petitioner is that all the details and photographs belong to a multiplayer video game in the name and style of Counter Strike 1. 1, the manual of which is also there in the hard disc. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the word counter strike 1.1 for search on net then several sites would open showing it as video game. Even the wikipedia shows that it is a multiplayer video game. It is startling as to why nothing has been said in the report regarding what is counter strike 1.1. If it has some terrorist link or information which was confidential but has been obtained somehow by the petitioner then such expression should have been there in the report that the articles are classified items. It is not stated whether it is available on net or not. It appears that the FSL expert did not even bother to search it on net as to what it was. If what is being said by the petitioner is correct, then there are several versions of counter strike game and the latest one is counter strike 1.6.

It has further been pointed out at the time of hearing on behalf of the petitioner that from the order-sheet of the court, which has been appended with one of the affidavits of the petitioner, that permission to send the external hard disc for its forensic examination was sought on 18.07.2016 and that too for sending it to FSL laboratory, Muzaffarpur and, accordingly, permission was also granted. However, surprisingly the report has been submitted by the FSL, Patna and report shows that the item was received on 13.07.2016. Though at a later stage, it has been clarified that in fact the order of the court was received vide memo no.1461 / 16 dated 11.07.2016. However, again it raises the same problem. If the order was passed on 18.07.2016 how the hard disc was sent for examination on 11.07.2016. These questions have to be answered by the FSL department and the respondents.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that we must have a perusal of the contents of the hard disc on Monitor in presence of the Senior Scientific Officer of FSL and the Investigating Officer. This extraordinary step is being taken up by us only for the reason that it was brought to our notice that a foreign national is in custody for the last more than one year and surprisingly the FSL report was submitted after a delay of about 9 -10 months and not only that, due to certain reason, in connection with this case, the Investigating officer has now been suspended and enquiry is going on against him for his alleged conduct.