TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Electronic records from memory cards and pen-drives are documents under Section 3 of Evidence Act</h1> <h3>P. Gopalkrishnan Versus State of Kerala and Ors.</h3> P. Gopalkrishnan Versus State of Kerala and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the contents of a memory card/pen-drive being electronic record qualify as a 'document' under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2. Whether it is obligatory to furnish a cloned copy of such contents to the Accused under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. Whether the Court can decline the request to furnish a cloned copy on grounds of privacy, dignity, and potential misuse.Issue-wise Comprehensive Details:1. Qualification of Electronic Record as a 'Document':The Supreme Court examined whether the contents of a memory card/pen-drive qualify as a 'document' under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court concluded that electronic records, including data, images, and sounds stored in electronic form, are indeed 'documents' as defined under these sections. The Court referenced various legal definitions and precedents, including the Information Technology Act, 2000, which defines 'electronic record' and 'data' broadly to include any information stored electronically.2. Obligation to Furnish Cloned Copy to the Accused:The Court held that under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Accused is entitled to receive copies of all documents on which the prosecution relies. This includes electronic records like the contents of a memory card/pen-drive. The Court emphasized that furnishing these documents is a facet of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Magistrate's duty under Section 207 is administrative, requiring full compliance with the section to ensure the Accused's right to a fair trial.3. Declining Request on Grounds of Privacy and Potential Misuse:The Court acknowledged the concerns regarding the privacy, dignity, and potential misuse of the cloned copy of the contents of the memory card/pen-drive. However, it emphasized the need to balance these concerns with the Accused's right to a fair trial. The Court proposed a solution where the Accused could seek a second expert opinion from an independent agency like the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). The Court mandated that the forensic report prepared by CFSL be kept confidential and accessible only to the concerned Accused or his authorized representative until the trial's conclusion.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the contents of the memory card/pen-drive are 'documents' under the relevant legal provisions. It directed that the Accused must be given access to these documents to ensure a fair trial. However, to address privacy concerns, the Court allowed the Accused to seek a second expert opinion from CFSL, ensuring confidentiality and preventing misuse. The Court modified the orders of the trial Court and the High Court accordingly and directed the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
