Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. Further, he would submit that whatever the documents, data etc., seized at the time of search, the same should have been mentioned in panchanama, however, in the present case, the respondents had not do so and hence, the seizure of electronic data is inadmissible since the hash value was not mentioned in the panchanama, which is mandatory requirement in terms of the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual. Further, the said evidences have to be sealed and signed by the Assessee, however, the same was also not followed by the respondents. Therefore, he would contend that the entire evidences have been collected against the procedure laid down in the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in various cases. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgements:

34. Further, he would contend that the fundamentals of the procedure to deal with the digital evidence has been duly followed and the hash value was calculated using forensic tools and the calculated hash value along with the algorithm was clearly mentioned in the Digital Evidence Forms pertaining to each of the seized electronic devices. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.Nos.9753, 9757, 9761 & 11176 of 2023 Digital Evidence Collection Form was duly signed by the General Manager of the petitioner's company, two independent witnesses and also the digital forensic examiner. In the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the General Manager of the petitioner's company stated that the devices imaged for seizure were used by him & the company staffs. This certificate was duly signed by the General Manager of the petitioner's company and two independent witnesses. The Chain of Custody form was also recorded mentioning the devices along with the receiving and releasing parties. The master copies were sealed in a separate box and the signatures was obtained on the sealed box from the assessee (the GM of petitioner's Company), the witnesses and the officer in charge. Therefore, he would submit that the seizure procedure has been followed by the respondents.

In the present case, the hash value was not recorded in the panchnama and the copy of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.Nos.9753, 9757, 9761 & 11176 of 2023 the image/cloned hard disk was not supplied to the Petitioners.

Report generated by the imaging tool which contains the details of the imaging attributes, details of hard disk drive imaged, date and time and the hash value of the hard disk drive should be incorporated in the report and the report should be annexed with the panchnama.

96. followed.

11.4.2-hash value of each disk should be mentioned in the panchnama The following information has to be In the present incorporated in the panchnama :- Inventory case all the of all computer hard disks/media found above were not followed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.Nos.9753, 9757, 9761 & 11176 of 2023 The time displayed in the CPU clock of the PC/Server and the actual local time at that time Inventory of all disks which were cloned/imaged with number of clones created/seized giving hash value of each disk.