Eli Lilly And Company & Anr. vs Maiden Pharmaceuticals Limited. on 9 November, 2016
A Single Judge of this Court,
relying on Anvar v. Basheer (supra), in ELI Lilly v. Maiden
Pharmaceuticals 2017 (161) DRJ 65 held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.56 seconds)Vikas Shukla vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. on 20 November, 2014
A Division Bench of this
Court in Kundan Singh Vs. State also, on a reading of
Anvar P.V. supra, disagreed with the view taken in
Ankur Chawla supra and held that the words
"produced in evidence" did not postulate or propound
a ratio that the computer output when reproduced as a
RFA 297/2015 Page 11 of 16
paper print out or on optical or magnetic media must
be simultaneously certified by an authorised person
under Section 65-B(4). It was held that all that is
necessary is that the person giving the certificate under
Section 65-B(4) should be in a position to certify and
state that the electronic record meets the stipulations
and conditions mentioned in Section 65-B(2), identify
the electronic record, describe the manner in which
computer output was produced and also give
particulars of the device involved in production of the
electronic record for the purpose of showing that the
electronic record was prepared by the computer. It was
further held that emails are downloaded and computer
output, in the form of paper prints, are taken every
day; these emails may become relevant and important
electronic evidence subsequently; it is difficult to
conceive and accept that the emails would be
inadmissible, if the official who downloaded them and
had taken printouts had failed to, on that occasion or
simultaneously record a certificate under Section 65-B.
.................
1