Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 designates the Cyber Forensic Division of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, Rajasthan, as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India. Its authorised scope covers Computer (Media) Forensics, excluding floppy disks, and Mobile Devices Forensics. Examination authority is confined to those specified electronic-evidence categories.

Cyber Forensic Laboratory, Navy Cyber Group, Naval Headquarters, is notified as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence within India under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Its authorised scope covers computer media forensics, excluding floppy disk drives, and mobile device forensics. The earlier 2024 Gazette designation is rescinded.

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For the Petitioners : (By Sri S.N. Hatti, Adv.) For the Respondents : (By Sri Y.V. Raviraj, Adv. for R3 Smt. K. Vidyavathi, AGA for R1 & R2) ORDER The short question for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the Land Acquisition Officer, Koppal, the second respondent herein is justified in deducting 10% of the interest awarded under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') towards deductio... ... ...

Designation of the Special Instruments Wing, Border Security Force, Central Drone Forensic Lab as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence is made under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The designation applies within India, with its authorised scope limited to drone forensics.

National Forensic Science University, Goa, is designated as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, with effect throughout India. Its authorised scope is confined to Computer (Media) Forensics and Mobile Devices Forensics. The designation identifies two distinct forensic domains for electronic-evidence examination.

Temporary supplementary filing for console cargo at Kolkata Customs is permitted from 9 October 2026 until midnight on 10 October 2026 where the requisite CSN has not been filed and cargo details must be added. The permission is confined to the stated purpose and period; it does not reinstate general supplementary filing for import cargo. Where a CSN/SAM has already been successfully filed, an amendment must follow the prescribed SCMTR amendment procedure.

Money-laundering accused consciously not arrested during investigation and remanded only after filing of the prosecution complaint and cognizance need not satisfy the twin bail conditions where custodial interrogation is not required. Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require arrest or judicial custody merely upon filing of a complaint; it requires production before the court. The court may instead secure appearance through bonds under Section 88. Continued remand, delayed commencement of trial, and no near prospect of conclusion supported release on bail.

Applications for confidentiality must disclose the applicant, known participants, communication particulars, the alleged arrangement, its objectives, activities, duration, associated persons, related proceedings, and supporting evidence. The applicant or authorised representative must verify on oath that the information is true, no material facts have been suppressed, and further relevant information will be promptly provided to the Board. The prescribed undertaking and waiver must accompany the application.

Schedule II prescribes settlement and violation-based fast-track settlement notices for prima facie securities-law violations. Notices identify defaults, violated provisions, penalty provisions, brief findings, and possible proceedings. Standard settlement permits an application within sixty days but provides no guarantee or entitlement to settlement. Fast-track settlement requires an application, remittance of the stipulated settlement amount, and compliance with remedial and regulatory terms. Failure, withdrawal, or unsatisfactory compliance may permit initiation of the specified proceeding, with a later-stage settlement application remaining available.

Settlement applications in administrative and civil securities proceedings require complete identifying particulars, details of relevant proceedings and enforcement action, alleged charges, and full and true disclosure of investor loss, profit made, loss avoided, and related fees, brokerage or commissions. Applicants must propose a settlement amount, disgorgement where applicable, and remedial and regulatory terms, with calculation basis and supporting materials. The application must be verified on oath and accompanied by prescribed undertakings, waivers, authority documentation, notices, identification details, and relevant records.

Regulation 45 repeals the 2018 settlement regulations from commencement while preserving continuity under the 2026 settlement framework. Summary settlement notices issued under the repealed regulations are treated as issued under, and handled under, the 2026 framework. Earlier settlement orders, the Internal Committee, and the High Powered Advisory Committee are deemed to continue under the 2026 Regulations. References in other regulations to the 2018 Regulations are read as references to the 2026 Regulations.

Transitional settlement processing preserves approved settlement terms under the repealed 2018 framework. Where a High Powered Advisory Committee recommendation awaits approval, the applicant must elect within thirty days of notice between fresh processing under the 2026 Regulations and processing under the 2018 Regulations using the recommended settlement amount. Applications lacking a Committee recommendation are processed under the 2026 Regulations through a fresh Internal Committee meeting.

Procedural defects in settlement proceedings, including defects in determining settlement terms or committee constitution, do not invalidate a settlement order or rejection. A settlement order may be revoked if the applicant fails to pay a difference arising from a discrepancy in the settlement term. Applicants remain bound by limitation, laches, undertaking, and Schedule I waivers. The recoverable difference includes profits gained or losses avoided from the relevant violations.

Relaxation of procedural timelines may be granted where the missed deadline is not more than thirty days old and non-adherence resulted from factors beyond the applicant's control. The power does not extend to time limits under regulations 4(1) and 5(1). An extension for payment of the settlement amount beyond the notice of demand period may not exceed thirty days and may result in a one percent increase in the settlement amount.

The Board may address difficulties in interpreting, applying or implementing the Settlement of Administrative and Civil Proceedings Regulations by issuing clarifications and prescribing procedures through circulars or guidelines.

Information and discussions in settlement proceedings are treated as fiduciary and may not be publicly released where disclosure prejudices the Board or applicant. Following rejection or withdrawal of an application, neither side may rely on or introduce settlement proposals, information, or representations as evidence before a court or Tribunal. The restriction does not apply on revocation of a settlement order. Information distinctly relating to a fact discovered through an application may be proved, whether or not it amounts to an admission.

Revocation of a settlement order may occur where an applicant breaches any settlement term, fails to make full and true disclosure, or violates undertakings or waivers. The Board may restore or initiate the proceeding for which settlement was granted. Prior hearing before the Board is mandatory before revocation. Upon revocation, amounts paid under the settlement framework are not refundable.

Settlement orders do not serve as evidence in separate proceedings concerning defaults outside their scope and do not affect third-party rights. In proceedings against co-noticees, observations regarding a settling applicant may be made only where necessary to establish another person's act, and remain subject to the settlement order unless revoked. Observations concerning another person's alleged default are not independently admissible against that person. Other co-noticees cannot rely on one applicant's settlement order to seek exoneration or claim that proceedings against them are infructuous.

Regulation 37 empowers the Board to introduce settlement schemes prescribing settlement terms for classes of persons involved in similar specified defaults. A settlement order issued under such a scheme is deemed to be a settlement order under the governing settlement framework.

Every settlement order in administrative and civil proceedings must be formally served on the applicant and published on the Board's website. The process therefore requires both direct notice to the settlement applicant and public online availability of the order, as mandatory procedural components of the settlement-order process for all settlement orders.