The Supreme Court of Advocates Khushbu Jain spoke to Etimes exclusively about on-drug cases involving Aryan Khan, Arbaaz Merchant, Munmun Dhamecha and others accused.
Jain, through experience and expertise explained that the accusations made by NCB against Arya could not be clear land to deny guarantees.
Furthermore, he also explained that since the WHATSAPP chat recovered from Arya’s telephone was the main basis for the NCB being investigated and requested that his guarantee be rejected, it became important to ascertain whether the cellphone was taken from Aryan by legitimate and halal way.
Read AlsoWaryan Khan Guarantee Application: Bombay HC to continue to hear at 2:30 on Wednesday
There are certain codes in Indian law for the foreclosure and presentation of electronic evidence in court.
Jain added that if there was a hose in following legal procedures, even phones and WhatsApp chat could end up not being considered as key evidence in the court.
Here is a quote from Jain’s assessment about the facts of the Arya Khan drug case.
Read:
‘Does the WHATSAPP chat accessible by NCB legally?’
In this case, a bigger problem is whether the allegation of whatsapp chat has been legally accessible and whether this secondary evidence can be enough to burden someone because there is no drug recovery carried out in Aryan Khan and there is no consumption evidence.
Furthermore, for the police to seek and win the telephone Aryan Khan will need a fully new procedure since the arrest under drug and psychotropic narcotics (NDPS) KIS below article 43 (b) on a cruise ship was made in a “public place”.
The search and foreclosure of Khan’s cellphone will require a second procedure, which is completely new and separate, and one is realized under the NDPS law for “personal” places.
Read Alsoishaan Khatter Standard by Reported by Panday’s Boyfriend Like Batu in the Middle of the Aryan Khan Narcotics Case: Report
‘Looking for a telephone is similar to finding a private or home residence’
Procedures for searching and foreclosure of private and public places under different NDPS laws.
Searching for a telephone is similar to finding a private or home residence.
Privacy rights are the basic rights of Indian citizens as pronounced by Puttaswamy Judgment 2017.
Therefore, will be obliged to the law enforcement agency to prove below what acts and the law has a telephone has been confiscated and Historic creature WhatsApp investigated.
It is important to understand that for the evidence to be presented in court, the police will be asked to prove that electronic evidence has been collected / obtained the following laws of procedures / ways.
An unethical way of procuring electronic evidence to gather information cannot form a part of evidence in court.
If electronic evidence is obtained through illegal ways, the one itself is a violation below Section 66 of IT ACT, 2000, ‘unofficial obtained’ electronic evidence cannot be used in a legal court.
Read AlsoWary Khan Hearing Bail: Lawyers beat Rohatgi argue that there is no consumption or ownership, ‘Why does this child spend 20 days in prison?’
‘Electronic evidence produced in court must be accompanied by a certificate that says there is no manipulation.
Proof of India Act, 1872 for receipt of electronic evidence must be stored in mind.
Electronic evidence can be accepted in court only if the condition in section 65 (b) of evidence of India Act, 1872, strictly followed.
Electronic evidence produced in court must be accompanied by certificates say no additional additions, changes or manipulation of electronic evidence.
Obtaining this certificate is an important requirement except the original document produced in court.
This certificate can be provided either by the owner of the device or the person responsible for function and maintenance if an organization has a device.
Narcotics case read AlsoWarya Khan: NCB to oppose the guarantee of the application again; Claims Shah Rukh Khan Manager influenced ‘witness Tamper’s inquiry
Only when legal law enforcement agencies take the device below Section 76 of IT ACT 2000, which provides for the foreclosure of the device, and send it for forensic analysis, forensic examiners, both from the government or private laboratories, can also provide a certificate.
But the body cannot force someone to provide evidence of themselves.
Aryan Khan or Ananya Panday can refuse to issue a certificate as an agent cannot force someone to provide evidence of themselves.
Lawyer SC about Aryan’s electronic evidence or Ananya produced in court
