Advanced Search Results

K. Ramajayam @ Appu Vs. The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyal Poli ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Criminal

- Section 3, Section 25, Section 114, Section 45, Section 45A, section 76, Section 62, Section 65B - Information Technology Act, 2000- Section 2, Section 2(t), Section 2, Section 79A - Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 - burglary and murder €“

Anu Shanthi vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Subject : Criminal

Forensic Division of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, is not an examiner of electronic evidence as contemplated under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and therefore, his evidence is not legally admissible.92. But, the learned Public … 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.9. As per the impugned

Nino Mathew vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Subject : Criminal

Forensic Division of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, is not an examiner of electronic evidence as contemplated under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and therefore, his evidence is not legally admissible.92. But, the learned Public … 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.9. As per the impugned

State of Kerala vs Nino Mathew

Court : Kerala

Forensic Division of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, is not an examiner of electronic evidence as contemplated under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and therefore, his evidence is not legally admissible.92. But, the learned Public … 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.9. As per the impugned

Abu Thahir vs the State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

(supra).23. At this juncture, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as 'the IT Act' for short) is relevant in so far as electronic evidence is concerned. … for short) is relevant in so far as electronic evidence is concerned. It is argued that as per Section 79A, the Central Government may, for the purpose ofproviding expert opinion on electronic from evidence before any Court or

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Election

or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), is a relevant fact. Explanation.-- For the purposes of … electronic records.13. It is now necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines “document” as follows: “Document.-- "Document" means any matter expressed or described upon

Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K.Basheer and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000(21 of 2000)., is a relevant fact. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, … referred to as ‘Evidence Act’). The Evidence Act underwent a major amendment by Act 21 of 2000 [The Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IT Act’)].. Corresponding amendments were also introduced in The Indian Penal Code (45 of

State of Kerala vs XXXXXX

Court : Kerala

Cyber Forensic Division of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram is a notified lab under section 79A ofthe Information Technology Act, 2000. The application of the prosecution dated 04-04-2022 for forwarding the electronic document for examination to the aforesaid lab

Umesh S/o. Vittal Patil Vs. State Of Karnataka,

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Subject : Land Acquisition

to be discussed.64. If the forensic lab is not notified by the Central Government u/s 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as provided in Sec 45A of the Indian Evidence Act, then the opinion of forensic expert will not … by one Sharifsab Pakrusab Nadaf, Lokayukta police registered a case in Crime No.16/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Gist of the complaint

State of Kerala vs Shaju @ Shyju

Court : Kerala

COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 2/1/2017,TO IDENTIFY AND SELECT THE EXAMINER OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 79-A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000, NOTIFIED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIAANNEXURE A4 B TRUE COPY OF THE … that Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram is not an approved examiner of electronic evidence appointed by Central Government under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act to provide expert opinion on the electronic evidence before any court or authority.13.