Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In view of the fact that the report produced by the respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) contradicted the report of the CSFL, Chandigarh as produced by the State, the High Court directed the matter to be referred to the CFSL at Hyderabad. The said laboratory at Hyderabad stated in its report, inter alia, as under:-

“4. a. Video footage with the same MD5 Hash value as of ‘rkf.AVI’ could not be retrieved/recovered from the Digital Evidence Storage Media marked Y (Submitted in CAH-06/2015).
b. No link could be possible between the digital evidence storage media marked A/10 and Y as no files bearing the same MD5 hash value are found.
5. This laboratory does not have the facility to compare and authenticate the Audio and Video files.” After the aforesaid proceedings and reports, the High Court heard the parties at length and formed an opinion against the order/recommendation of the learned Lokayukta; and, while allowing the writ petition, proceeded to set aside the impugned order of Lokayukta dated 20.01.2014 and subsequent order passed in the review application on 10.02.2014. However, the High Court left it open for the State to carry out investigation as per law, if there be any other material or information of corrupt practice against the writ petitioner.