Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It is further submitted that though the complainant stated in his evidence that accused Nos.1 and 2 have made several phone calls and demanded illegal gratification from him, the primary evidence like M.O.6 has not been proved in accordance with the law. The evidence of PW.1 would indicate that the respondent - CBI has not collected the memory card in his presence and he further, deposes that whether the memory card was there or not, was not aware to him. Moreover, the hash value of the mobile phone has not been secured which is important to ascertain the authenticity of the said mobile. In spite of this lacuna, the Trial Court proceeded to render the conviction, which is erroneous and unsustainable.