Electronic Evidence Under New Evidence Act (BSA) And General Overview of The Changes in Evidence Act
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Yuvraj P.Narvankar
Advocate, Bombay High Court
Author
Organised by
Beyond Law CLC
Contact us
E-mail: beyondlawclc@gmail.com
Website: www.beyondlaw.in/
Facebook: BeyondLawCLC
TH-cam: th-cam.com/users/Beyo....
I'm grateful. Above and Beyond Law CLC I adore you,Yuraj Sir. Your teaching style is excellent, sir. Kudos to you!🌹
Thank you for liking it.
Absolutely wonderful analysis.. was fully engrossed in the lecture till the end. I was indeed not aware of the sea change brought in by this new Act. Thnks beyondlawclc
Thank you for your expressions
क्या कॉल रिकॉर्डिंग अदालत में सबूत के रूप में स्वीकार्य है?
Dear listeners
I must answer one query which has come up as DM to me which i was expecting during session but didnt come.
There is a word in section 57, which says ‘subject to S. 63’ and then one might think that primary evidence as contemplated by section 57 doesn’t need any compliance but any other electronic evidence would be secondary evidence and would need compliance of section 63.
The answer lies in my last webinar. There is nothing as primary in the world of electronic evidence.
Every thing that you see on the screen, or paper is secondary rendition of the data, and the primary data is always binary
Also distinction created by section 57 is artificial, take an email sent by X coming from the custody of Y (recipient of the email)
According to section 57, this would be primary evidence since it is coming from the proper custody. (Expl. 5 to S. 57)
But if suppose Z, someone who has the login details of Y, takes the mail or its prints, then will it be primary evidence or will it require the compliance with 63? That would be absurd distinction.
Because custody has nothing to do with the authenticity of the electronic record. The lawful custodian of electronic record can also tamper with it and is in fact in a better position to tamper with it.
Further word subject to section
63 can also mean that even primary evidence would need the compliance.
Then what is the logic of distinction if at the end of the day they both need the compliance.
And therefore the apparent conflict between section 57 and section 63 .
Absolutely bang on point analysis sir🙌🙏🏼
Thank you for sharing it.
@@yuvrajnarvankar5290ok sir
Very nice explanation sir .nice video for evidence act
Keep watching
Hi @beyond law
Please organise a session on combined topics of Industrial Disputes Act, Wrongful Termination of Employment in Software Company, Electronic Evidence.
Superb lecture, excellent explanation, thanks
Glad you liked it
Including influential citations in the title body can greatly enhance the credibility and impact of your work. I suggest considering this as a valuable addition to your writing process.
We would try.
Very nice presentation of such complicated matter. Thanks for presentation.
Glad it was helpful!
Very nice🎉
Thank you! Cheers!
Sir, the book written by narvanker is not in readable format.kindly increase the font size
Good explanation Sir 🎉🎉
Brilliant Debate
We are glad you liked it.
Have a question with respect to your explanation of explanation 6 of section 57. It says if there's simultaneous recording and storing/ transmitting/ broadcasting, each of this is a primary evidence. But in the illustration you give, you state that an electronic record sent to a friend will also be considered a primary evidence. In my understanding, the electronic recording should be simultaneously transmitted while it is being recorded. Can you clarify if my understanding is correct?
Nicely explained.. very good
Glad you liked it
Great information sir
So nice of you
Thank you Sir🙏
Most welcome
Good content created by the platform
Thank you
Thank you Beyond law CLC 🙏
Thanks for liking the effort.
Simplicity missing for ligitant, bar, and bench as well as far as Electronic evidence in the Evidence Act both Old and new.
What about a device disconnected from servers and used to stock evidence, will that be considered a communication device?
AutoCad Drawing generated on cracked version of autocad admissible ? under electronic evidence.
Very nice explanation sir .nice video for evidence act