Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Both   the   sides   have   been   heard   at   length  finally. 

2. During the course of hearing emphasis is on the  part of the learned advocate on the Whatsapp and  Voice Chat messages, which are reflected  in the  statement   given   to   the   officers   of   Narcotics  Control Bureau ("NCB" for short) by the present  applicant   at   04.08.2017.   He   has   urged   that   the  said Voice Chat is speaking of innocence of the  applicant and, therefore, the seizure memo dated  R/SCR.A/1691/2018 ORDER 07.08.2017   and   the   Motorola   phone   forwarded   to  the   Director   of   Forensic   Science   Laboratory  ("the FSL" for short) culminated into the report  of the the FSL. The result of examination shows  at page 213 of the petition that the chats and  e­mails   have   not   been   retrieved.   He   has   also  pointed   out   from   the   communication   dated  07.08.2017 that his mobile phone which is in the  list   at   page   20   was   not   sealed   at   the   time   of  seizure.   This has been, of course, disputed by  the   learned   Standing   Counsel   Mr.   Pandya     for  respondent No.2 and pointed out at page 207 the  report of the FSL that the Motorola phone was in  a sealed envelope. In a specific query raised by  the   Court   with   regard   to   the   Hash   Value   being  not   of   the   electronic   gadget   at   the   time   of  seizure,   he   has   submitted   on   instructions   that  no such Hash Value was recorded. 

3. On the query raised by the Court whether in case  of   all   other   electronic   gadgets   the   Hash   Value  is being recorded by the investigating officers  R/SCR.A/1691/2018 ORDER or not, he needed to take instructions. Let the  Regional   Head   of   the   NCB   remain   present   on  11.09.2018. 

(MS. SONIA GOKANI, J. ) SUDHIR