Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

53. Mr. Dhar has contended that, scanned copy of OMR sheets cannot be in .Dat format. According to him, some other software had been used to put it into .Dat format. Therefore, the data available in the hard disks is processed data and not the scanned images of OMR sheets as initially claimed by CBI. Moreover, matching of Hash value requires the same file format. Consequently, the materials allegedly seized by CBI should not be relied upon.

54. Mr. Mukul Lahiri learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 643 to 645 and applicants in CAN 8 of 2024 filed in WP No. 12270 of 2021 has contended that, his clients come from poor and humble background. His clients had participated in the selection process and fulfil the prescribed requirements. His clients had never made any misrepresentation. He has pointed out that, his client received the appointment after following the due process. Board of Secondary Education had published an order dated March 11, 2023 stating that appointment of 785 of Group C candidates stood cancelled. Names of his clients had appeared in such list. He has contended that, his clients were not parties to the writ petition in which an order dated March 10, 2023 was passed. He has pointed out the prayers made in the writ petition and contended that, there was no prayer for setting aside the selection process. His clients upon coming to know of the orders dated December 21, 2022 and March 10, 2023 passed in the writ petition applied for being added as party respondents to the writ petition.

102. Mr Sen has contended that, Section 65B (2) of the Evidence Act list out various conjunctive conditions to be met which are also mandatory. He has contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, such mandatory provisions have not been met.

103. Mr Sen has contended that, the chain of custody of the digital evidence is necessary to establish that the digital evidence being supplied/used was really from the same source to be believed, and not a substituted/false source. He has pointed out that the order dated November 9, 2023 of the Supreme Court requires this Court to decide on both the issue of admissibility as also authenticity of the OMR data. According to him, whereas the point of admissibility requires a Section 65B certificate the requirement of authenticity demands hash value/MD5 fingerprint of the created electronic record to be matched with the last electronic record in the entire chain on data transfers. He has contended that, neither of the conditions stand satisfied.