Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.64 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Anr on 3 November, 2003
".......However, it must be understood that mere admission or admissibility
of the electronic record would not mean that the contents of the electronic
record have been proved beyond doubt and debate and are automatically
proved when the document is marked exhibit. Mere marking of a document
as exhibit does not dispense with the proof of its contents (see Sait Tarajee
Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1856, Narbada Devi Gupta v.
Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC 745 and Mohd. Yusuf v. D., AIR 1968
BOMBAY 112). Provisions of Section 65 of Evidence Act are apposite on the
said legal principle and reference can also be made to Sections 91 and 92 of
the Evidence Act. The latter sections deal with exclusion of oral evidence by
documentary evidence in certain cases and in which cases oral evidence can
be led even when there are documents recording terms of contract, grant or
any other disposition of property or when a matter is required by law to be
reduced to a form of a document. The effect of the aforesaid provisions is
that when a certificate under Section 65B authenticates the computer
output, it will only show and establish that the computer output is the
paper print out or media copy, etc. of the computer from which the
output is obtained. The court has still to rule out when challanged or
otherwise, the possibility of tampering interpolation or changes from
the date the record was first stored or created in the computer till the
Order on Charge in case FIR No.33/08; PS ACB Page No. 7 of 12
8
computer output is obtained. The focus over here is not so much on the
creation of the output as stipulated under subsection (2) to Section 65B, but
rather on the preservation and sanctity of the record after it was originally
created. It extends beyond identification of the particular computer
equipment and the process or equipment used for computer output, etc. It
would relate to the policies, procedures for use of the equipment that stored
the said information since creation and data base and integrity of the same.
Questions which would arise and have to be answered is whether data
base was protected and had no or limited access, which permits
modification/ alteration; whether the data base could be wrongly
lodged or created or could be transferred or changed when the data
base was transferred and stored in the backup systems. These are
questions which are pertinent and have to be examined to ascertain
whether or not there was possibility of change, alteration or
manipulation in the initial or original data after it was created. The
courts must rule out that the records have not been tampered and read the
data or information as it originally existed. These are aspects which are not
codified as such, for probative value is examined on the case to case basis
keeping in mind the relevant facts."
Mohammed Yusuf And Anr. vs D. And Anr. on 14 July, 1961
".......However, it must be understood that mere admission or admissibility
of the electronic record would not mean that the contents of the electronic
record have been proved beyond doubt and debate and are automatically
proved when the document is marked exhibit. Mere marking of a document
as exhibit does not dispense with the proof of its contents (see Sait Tarajee
Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1856, Narbada Devi Gupta v.
Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, (2003) 8 SCC 745 and Mohd. Yusuf v. D., AIR 1968
BOMBAY 112). Provisions of Section 65 of Evidence Act are apposite on the
said legal principle and reference can also be made to Sections 91 and 92 of
the Evidence Act. The latter sections deal with exclusion of oral evidence by
documentary evidence in certain cases and in which cases oral evidence can
be led even when there are documents recording terms of contract, grant or
any other disposition of property or when a matter is required by law to be
reduced to a form of a document. The effect of the aforesaid provisions is
that when a certificate under Section 65B authenticates the computer
output, it will only show and establish that the computer output is the
paper print out or media copy, etc. of the computer from which the
output is obtained. The court has still to rule out when challanged or
otherwise, the possibility of tampering interpolation or changes from
the date the record was first stored or created in the computer till the
Order on Charge in case FIR No.33/08; PS ACB Page No. 7 of 12
8
computer output is obtained. The focus over here is not so much on the
creation of the output as stipulated under subsection (2) to Section 65B, but
rather on the preservation and sanctity of the record after it was originally
created. It extends beyond identification of the particular computer
equipment and the process or equipment used for computer output, etc. It
would relate to the policies, procedures for use of the equipment that stored
the said information since creation and data base and integrity of the same.
Questions which would arise and have to be answered is whether data
base was protected and had no or limited access, which permits
modification/ alteration; whether the data base could be wrongly
lodged or created or could be transferred or changed when the data
base was transferred and stored in the backup systems. These are
questions which are pertinent and have to be examined to ascertain
whether or not there was possibility of change, alteration or
manipulation in the initial or original data after it was created. The
courts must rule out that the records have not been tampered and read the
data or information as it originally existed. These are aspects which are not
codified as such, for probative value is examined on the case to case basis
keeping in mind the relevant facts."
Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010
In the landmark judgment of
Sajjan Kumar and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on
20th September 2010, judgments of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal & Anr. reported as (1979) 3 SCC IV and Dilawar Balu Kurane
Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2002) 2 SCC 135 in reference to
framing of charge were discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it
was observed as under:
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
In the landmark judgment of
Sajjan Kumar and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on
20th September 2010, judgments of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar
Samal & Anr. reported as (1979) 3 SCC IV and Dilawar Balu Kurane
Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2002) 2 SCC 135 in reference to
framing of charge were discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it
was observed as under:
Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996
In Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and
another (1996) 9 SCC 766 the Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with
what the Courts should take into consideration while framing charge. If
Order on Charge in case FIR No.33/08; PS ACB Page No. 11 of 12
12
two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge
the accused. Valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a
trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to
pronounce the conclusion on a future date. I am certain that the trial would
only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time. I, therefore, find it a
fit case to turncate the proceedings at this stage."