Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. It was submitted that the retrieval of data was done on various dates, in the presence of independent witnesses. One of the investigating officers, Shri V. Kalyanapasupathy, Inspector of Central Excise, was the sole person in charge of such retrieval. He had introduced two software tools, viz., PC inspector and bad copy pro, to retrieve the data from the password protected files stored in the floppies. The retrieval of the files in the instant case was not by means of any authenticated software tool, it is argued. Appellants introduced the concept of what they describe as computer forensics. It was submitted that the original floppy should have been imaged and copy alone used in the proceedings. Hash value of the data in the floppy should have been ascertained to show that this parameter (status of the data) was not disturbed during investigation after seizure from the assessee.

18. Appellants introduced what they describe as cardinal rules of computer forensics followed by Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) and Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD). According to the appellants, manner in which GEQD deals with computer/floppies has to be followed in adjudication by authorities. We are not informed by either side that these principles are part of any manual or act that govern quasijudicial proceedings. There is no such protocol or procedure laid down in this regard in the concerned acts such as Central Excise Act 44, Cr PC, Evidence Act or the Information Technology Act. As long as the integrity of the data is not suspect and the adjudicator can show the concerned parties that the same are not tampered with there could be no hazard in using the same. We have found from the circumstances in which printouts were taken, as to which of the print outs could be relied on in the proceedings.