Documents To Be Attached With The Tender Form S. No. Particulars: Fill & Download for Free

Q. Can America sentence young non-violent people to military basic training and advanced skilled training instead of a prison sentence?A. Correctional boot camps were the rage in the US in the 1980’s and 1990′s. Meta-analysis conclusively showed no improvement in recidivism, or cost savings. Two papers included were reviews of US experience (vengeful justice) as models/cautionary tales for Australia and the United Kingdom.Correctional boot camps (United Kingdom)What is the focus of the intervention?Boot camps are programmes for juvenile or adult offenders as an alternative to punishments such as prison or probation. They are modelled on military boot camps and involve activities such as drills, ceremony and physical training. Strict daily schedules are followed, and punishments for misbehaviour often involve physical activities like push-ups.Programmes differ based on content and delivery of physical and therapeutic aspects, which could include education, substance abuse treatment and improvement of cognitive skills.This narrative summarises the findings of three systematic reviews. Review 1 was based on 32 studies, Review 2 was based on 44 studies and Review 3 was based on 16 studies.The conclusions on effect size are taken from Review 1 only.All boot camp studies included in the reviews were conducted in the USA.EFFECTHow effective is it?There is some evidence that the intervention has either increased or reduced crime, but overall the intervention has not had a statistically significant effect on crime.In Review 1, while individual studies found both statistically significant positive and negative effects on crime, the overall analysis showed that boot camps had no overall effect on rates of re-offending by participants. This result was consistent across all three reviews.How strong is the evidence?The overall evidence is taken from Review 1 (based on a meta-analysis of 32 studies).The review was sufficiently systematic that most forms of bias that could influence the study conclusions can be ruled out.It had a well-designed search strategy, included unpublished literature and risks of bias by the reviewers were minimised.However, biases remain within the primary studies, including the difficulties of comparing boot camps to one another due to differences in treatments, the use of different outcome measures by researchers, and the problem of drop-out rates and how to take these into consideration when calculating effect sizes.MECHANISMHow does it work?The authors of Review 2 provided the most comprehensive attempt at explaining how boot camps work to reduce reoffending.By ensuring strict discipline and demanding physical exercise and labour, participants are encouraged to behave respectfully and obediently, hopefully making them more likely to comply with rules or laws upon programme completion.Adherence to daily routines and interactions with camp staff should teach participants skills to help them control their behaviour.Prosocial behaviours such as respect are also taught and practiced, with close supervision allowing positive behaviours to be reinforced and negative behaviours punished immediately.Review 3 also mentioned increasing self-esteem and promoting physical fitness as life skills.MODERATORSIn which contexts does it work best?The reviews noted a number of potential moderators, including offender characteristics (age and gender), programme characteristics (focus on rehabilitative or physical elements), treatments (drug treatment, vocational education and aftercare components), whether the programme was voluntary or mandated, and the presence of counselling sessions as part of the programme.None of the three reviews explained why or how these contextual differences might influence the outcome.Review 1 found that participants in boot camps with a strong therapeutic component including treatments such as education, drug treatment and counselling had lower rates of reoffending than those in camps with a stronger focus on physical elements.They also found that juvenile boot camps without a counselling component had a statistically significant negative effect upon re-offending rates of participants.Review 2 found that participants in voluntary boot camps had reduced rates of recidivism compared to mandatory boot camps. Review 2 also discovered that voluntary boot camps for young people significantly reduced the participants’ odds of recidivism (based on only 3 primary studies).While no moderator analysis was conducted on race, review 3 noted that up to 80% of boot camp participants were ethnic minority youths, despite boot camps being originally designed for white, working class participants.IMPLEMENTATIONWhat can be said about implementing this initiative?Boot camps are structured programmes, which generally last between 90 and 180 days.There is a graduation ceremony attended by family and friends for those who successfully complete the programme.Participants are housed in dormitories resembling military barracks, are placed in squads or platoons, and wear uniforms. Programme staff function as drill instructors and are often addressed by military titles. Punishment for misbehaviour is immediate, and usually takes the form of physical activities such as push ups.All three reviews note that studies evaluating boot camps with a strong therapeutic element seemed to have a higher chance of a successful outcome than those with a weaker or no therapeutic focus. Review 3 noted that programmes vary widely in the application and duration of therapeutic elements. Review 2 suggested that aftercare services with therapeutic content are important, and therefore, should not be short term in duration.ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONSHow much might it cost?While none of the reviews conducted a full cost benefit analysis, some mention of costs was reported in the primary studies.Review 2 cited one study, which found that in 1997, the cost per boot camp participant was $31,752 less per year in California, compared to the cost of incarceration. Another study reported a similar comparison and found that in 2001 boot camps were $78,700 cheaper than prison per participant per year. Review 3 stated that the Alabama boot camp cost a total of between $779,229 and $1,676,880 less than participants being in prison. Three studies within Review 3 found that boot camps were cheaper than prison, while four studies found no difference.General considerations• Boot camps differ substantially in content – some camps focus on physical training and hard labour, while others emphasise delivering therapeutic programming such as academic education, drug treatment or cognitive skills.• Boot camps with an evidence-based therapeutic focus see the largest reductions in recidivism amongst participants.SummaryThere is some evidence that the intervention has either increased or reduced crime, but overall the intervention has not had a statistically significant effect on crime. Those boot camps that have seen the greatest reduction in participant recidivism, especially with juvenile populations, have focused upon therapeutic elements within the programmes.Ratings for Individual ReviewsResourcesReview 1: Wilson, D.B., MacKenzie, D.L., Mitchell, F.N. (2003) 'Effects of correctional boot camps on offending' Campbell Systematic Reviews 2003:1, DOI:10.4073/ csr.2003.1Review 2: Meade, B. and Steiner, B. (2010) 'The total effects of boot camps that house juveniles: A systematic review of the evidence', Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 841-853Review 3: Riphagen, R. C. (2010) 'Effectiveness of Male Juvenile Boot Camps in the United States: A Critical Review of the Literature', Doctoral Dissertation, Azusa Pacific University.Uploaded 04/06/15Boot camps a poor fit for juvenile justice (Australia)October 24, 2012 2.36pm AEDT Robyn Lincoln Assistant Professor, Criminology, Bond UniversityQueensland unveils tenders for two new boot camp programs for young offenders.The Queensland Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie, has authorised a tender process for the operation of two youth boot camps. The camps, aimed at 13 to 17 year olds, are to be trialled in Cairns and on the Gold Coast for a two-year period. The camp in the north of the state is an intensive diversion program for “sentenced” juveniles, while that in the south-east corner is an early intervention scheme for “at risk” youth.As with all matters of justice, Queensland is not alone in proffering boot camps as the “answer to youth crime”. The Brumby Government proposed school-based camps for Victoria in 2010, and both the Northern Territory and Western Australia have flirted with such programs as early as the 1980s.In the wake of calls for the operation of boot camps to solve problems of youth crime, it is instructive to examine what they are, what inspires them and what the research evidence reveals about their outcomes.The shape and size of boot campsThere was a proliferation of boot camps in the USA in the 1980s and 1990s, where millions of dollars were diverted to their operations.They come under the guise of wilderness, bush, work, motivational and challenge camps. Some are attached to schools or prisons and many are geared toward adult offenders, but a significant proportion are aimed at “recalcitrant youth”, some set up specifically for females.While the camp programs vary, the common features of these residential programs are that they are established on militaristic lines with an emphasis on deference to authority, conformity, intimidation, isolation, and concentrated physical training.The tender documents for the proposed Queensland camps appear no different. The program intends to instill “discipline and respect”, ensures “direct consequences for offending” and entails considerable “supervision”.Moral foundationsThe very concept of a boot camp is based on the notion of individual responsibility for crime and anti-social behaviour. It is about failure of parents or families and ultimately of the young people who find themselves in trouble with the law.The principles revolve around shock treatment, power and control, and disciplinarian techniques. To that end they exemplify the “get tough” politicisation of crime, a misplaced view that we have the capacity to correctly identify threat and risk. A misguided belief in the effectiveness of the punitive approaches of past centuries.This is what has been labelled by some as “vengeance justice”. For even though these programs purport to “address the causes of crime”, they are mean-spirited and sheet the blame for crime solely at the individual level.Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie addresses the press. AAP/Dave HuntEvaluating boot campsDuring the 1990s in particular and in the USA specifically, a number of studies were conducted into the effectiveness of boot camps. Similar evidence emerged from the UK about a range of “short sharp shock” treatment regimes.All of this empirical work shows quite clearly that there is no benefit to boot camps. Whether the measures are re-offending rates or whether it is centred around cost-effectiveness — there is little to show that boot camps offer a beneficial alternative.Of course given the variety of boot camp philosophies and the practices of their daily regimes some caution needs to be exercised about the research evidence. In addition, trying to conduct any truly robust research is difficult and rarely are quasi-experimental designs used (that is, random allocation of youth to boot camp versus a range of other interventions that are then followed up in the long term).Yet even in studies where there were some differences in outcomes, they were marginal or negligible and could often be sheeted home to the backgrounds of the offenders (age, sex, previous convictions) rather than any militaristic-style intervention they had undergone.Of most significance is that some studies showed that there was potential for greater effectiveness when the boot camp included some kind of “treatment” option which flies in the face of the fundamental philosophy of such camps.In the last decade more sophisticated research has emerged including meta-analyses of multiples studies. However the findings remain, that there were no significant differences on re-offending measures between those who attend a correctional boot camp and those who did not.Even when the “softer” style of boot camps were evaluated there were no differences on recidivism. Similarly studies that have undertaken longer term follow-ups show no benefit. In research where a cost-saving has been identified this was only because offenders spent slightly less time in prison. Finally, one evaluation of a school-based camp again found no differences on re-offending but participants displayed “favourable” views of the program.Does the boot fit?Thus several decades of evaluations of boot camps has demonstrated quite conclusively that they are not effective in reducing recidivism and have marginal impact on cost-savings.The problem with these “shock and awe” tactics is that they are centred around individual responsibility. This shows a fundamental lack of appreciation of the “causes” of crime — demographic changes, deployment of police, reform to criminal codes, urban design, extended surveillance, tougher supervision orders.Most of all it signals a vengeful justice system. Let’s face it, boot camps are founded on fear and terror.Return to the Crime Reduction ToolkitJuvenile Boot Campshttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdfConclusions: Correctional practitioners and planners might learn from boot camps’ failure to reduce recidivism or prison populations by considering the following:■ Building reintegration into the community into an inmate’s individual program and reentry plans may improve the likelihood he or she will not commit a new offense.■ Programs that offered substantial discounts in time served to those who completed boot camps and that chose candidates sentenced to serve longer terms were the most successful in reducing prison populations.■ Chances of reducing recidivism increased when boot camp programs lasted longer and offered more intensive treatment and post release supervision, activities that may conflict with the goal of reducing population. Efforts to achieve multiple goals are likely the overall cause of boot camps’ conflicting results.Program designers are urged to determine which options are best for their jurisdictions; for example, they may consider whether to implement more treatment programs or move inmates out of the system more rapidly. These decisions affect costs, as prison bed-space savings go up or down. Other correctional programs are adopting some of the important elements of boot camps—for example, carefully structured programs that reduce idleness—to increase safety and improve conditions of confinement for younger offenders.20 However, in recent years, some jurisdictions facing rising costs have responded by cutting programs.One lesson for policymakers from 10 years of boot camp research is that curtailing programs may lead to increased violence, misconduct, and serious management problems.Boot Camp Justice for Juvenile OffendersAfter the crime rate for those under the age of 17 doubled in a five year period, Camp Stop, a military-style boot camp, was opened. This program aims to deal with juvenile offenders and steer them away from a life of crime. Fourteen-year-old Norton G. explains why he was incarcerated. Sgt. Major Richard Hurt believes boot camp can make a positive difference in kids’ lives. While life is harsh at Camp Stop, it cannot compare with life in Georgia prisons in the 1930s. Scenes from the movie I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, based on a book about Georgia prisons, show how the mistreatment of prisoners led to prison reforms.Criminal Justice and the Juvenilehttp://file:///C:/Users/RAD/Downloads/1978-6398-2-PB%20(1).pdfhttps://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FCJEI/Programs/SLP/Documents/Full-Text/Bobbitt-thomas-paper.aspx

These are some questions that the courts are faced today, almost on an everyday basis. The use of computers is all-pervasive now. Almost all data is digital these days and most communication is exchanged electronically through SMS,Email, Whatsapp, Facebook, Twitter etc. In Civil as well as Criminal Cases, the courts are frequently called upon to rule on whether ‘electronic evidence is admissible or not’. Practice has shown that this is by no means an easy question to answer.This write-up is an attempt to simplify the complex law relating to admissibility of electronic evidence and to touch briefly upon some of the most pressing issues, as discussed above.The First principles of lawFirst, a few words about how the law embraced the IT revolution. The IT Act, 2000 has given sanctity to electronic records and the definition of ‘evidence’ in the Evidence Act, has been expanded to include electronic records. Data in electronic form has to be stored and preserved. An electronic record, simply put, is information/data recorded in an electronic form. Therefore, data recorded on a hard drive, pen drive, CD, DVD, or even the Internet qualifies as ‘electronic record’. An image file on your pen drive, or a photo clicked on your phone or a WhatsApp message on your phone memory or service provider’s server are all ‘electronic records’.The original device in such a case which produced the electronic record is ‘primary evidence’. For eg : The sound recorder/CCTV Camera and attached hard disk used to record a video/audio clip are primary evidence of its contents. Another example may be huge servers where data is created and stored. Such servers are what qualifies as ‘primary evidence’. The general rule of law of evidence is that when primary evidence is available, secondary evidence is not admissible. However, the same principle cannot be strictly applied in cases of electronic records. Large Servers/Original devices cannot be expected to be brought before the court in each case. Therefore, secondary evidence in the form of a output such as Printout or soft copy in the form of CD/DVD etc is admissible in a court of law, provided certain conditions are met.These conditions are laid down with a view to ensure that the secondary evidence is true and accurate representation of the original electronic record and has not been tampered with, in any manner.What is Section 65B of the Evidence Act ?Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, simply put, lays down the conditions and procedure of proof of an electronic record in a court of law. Section 65B is important insofar as it recognises that the original primary evidence of electronic record cannot be expected to be brought before the court and even if it is, the same being in binary form (Binary is the language that the computer/machine understands – where everything is stored in a string of zeros and ones!) the same cannot be understood by the court. The net effect of Section 65B is that the output in the form of a printout or data copied on CD/DVD etc produced by the computer is rendered admissible in the court, provided certain conditions are met. This is the import of Section 65B(1).Section 65B(2) lays down certain conditions relating to integrity of the data. These conditions are there to ensure that :a) there has been no unauthorised access to the data in question;b) the computer was functioning properly and therefore the reproduction of data is accurate and genuine.3. Certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act : Who is to issue, and what is that it is supposed to contain ?The output of a electronic record, in order to be admissible in a court of law, has to be filed along with a certificate u/s 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. Such a certificate has to be issued by a person occupying responsible position with respect to the computer from which the data is produced. The certificate has to certify the conditions laid down in S. 65B(2) relating to integrity of data and computer system; the manner of production of the output of electronic record, identity and particulars of device used (including the original device). The entire idea behind the certificate is to ensure, once again, integrity of source, authenticity of data, so that the court can place reliance on it. This is important since electronic data is more prone to tampering and alteration.Questions such as : How the certificate is to be prepared, who is to issue the certificate, and the exact contents of the certificate, will depend on the specific nature of electronic record that is sought to be proved. For instance : A image taken with the mobile phone camera, will be first copied onto the laptop and thereafter printed out. In such a case, the certificate will have to mention the process of transfer and printing so as to prove ‘integrity in the chain of movement’ and will have to be prepared and given by the operator of the mobile phone and the laptop. It has to compulsorily conform to the conditions in S.65B(2) & (4). It has to identify the original mobile phone and the other devices used in preparing the output. In such cases, preserving the original is also extremely necessary. Computer Forensic Experts advise the retention/preservation of the original in a dust/transmission resistant environment, making a clone copy of the contents therein (after using devices such as write-blocker to ensure no data is written onto the device during access and process of copying), and access to the document through the clone/mirror copy only. Accessing the data on the device itself may make the authenticity/integrity of the document suspect and may make it open to challenge. Taking the ‘Hash Value’ of the device at the time of seizure (Simply put, a Hash Value is a specific string of numbers that each file produces; any change in the file, even a space or a comma, leads to a total change of hash value; this algorithm is used to preserve the document in original shape and ensure no tampering takes place). Taking the hash value at the time of seizure of electronic evidence and thereafter, at the time of evidence before the court convinces the court as to non-tampering with the device. (The different forensic practices used to guarantee evidentiary value, in greater details, will be discussed in a different post of ours).Things get slightly more complicated when information over the internet is sought to be proved. One view is that the person taking the printout from a website/email – is to give the certificate; the other view is that the person incharge and responsible for the server where the information resides is to give the certificate. The latter option spells great trouble and will render most electronic information extremely difficult to be proved as most servers are located in distant locations, spread over a large geographical area ,under managerial control of different personnel, and most importantly outside the jurisdiction of our courts.The question on as to who is to issue the certificate is also important, and assumes even greater importance in case of proof of Call Detail Records etc.By virtue of decision of Delhi High Court in Kundan Singh Vs. The State [MANU/DE/3674/2015], the doctrine of hearsay, in its application to proof of electronic evidence, has been limited a great deal. The court has recognised the fact that in cases of huge information contained across various servers, which is sought to be proved years later, it may not be possible to procure the evidence/certificate issued by persons incharge of the computer system at that time. In such cases, people who have subsequently taken over charge of such computers can issue certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act. Evidence in such cases cannot be eschewed merely on the ground of hearsay. Therefore, what follows is that a person holding a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device/activities can give a certificate u/s 65B in relation to CCTV Records/CDR Etc. This flows from the fact that the fact that system was working properly at a relevant time is something that can be gauged from system logs, and is not something that is strictly within personal knowledge of one individual.Another peculiar situation that may be visualised is when the output of an electronic record is seized from the Accused; for eg, at the time of arrest, the accused is made to take a printout from his email account; whether in such a case it is the accused who can be made to issue the certificate; and if yes, whether the same amounts to ‘self incrimination’ and resultantly, runs foul of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Conversely, can one also say that this printout is a ‘fact discovered’ for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, admissible in evidence even de hors Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The jury is out on this one, and a authoritative decision of the court is awaited. Till then, there are arguments for and against each position.Is the certificate u/s 65B(4) of Evidence Act mandatory for reception of electronic evidence ?In this regard, the earlier view_was that compliance with S.65B of the Evidence Act is not an absolute requirement of law and Secondary evidence, in terms of Section 65 IEA can still be led in proof of a electronic record. However, the Supreme Court in ANVAR P.V. VS. P.K. BASHEER AND OTHERS [MANU/SC/0834/2014] has ruled that a certificate u/s 65B is compulsory for admission of electronic evidence and over ruled Navjot Sandhu(supra) to that extent. The Court observed that Section 65B of the Evidence Act begins with a ‘non-obstante clause’ and would override the general law on secondary evidence, as laid down under Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Section 65B is a special provision concerning proof of electronic records. The very caption of S.65A read with S. 59 and 65B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed u/s 65B of the IEA, 1872. This is a complete code in itself and being a special law, the general law under sections 63 and 65 has to yield. (Generalia specialibus non derogant : special law will always prevail over the general law.) Therefore, Section 63 and Section 65 of the Evidence Act have no application to the secondary evidence of the electronic evidence and same shall be wholly governed by the Section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. No expert evidence/oral evidence can be led in absence of the certificate. The case concerned proof of video footage relating to an election malpractice matter. The court held that the output in the form of CD/DVD/Pen drive was inadmissible in absence of the certificate; however, if the original recorder/hard drive attached to CCTV is led in evidence, the same can be received even without the certificate as it will be primary evidence itself. Also see : Kishan Tripathi Vs. The State (MANU/DE/0434/2016), where it was held that Original Hard Disk containing CCTV Footage is a primary evidence u/s 62 EA.This position has been reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Harpal Singh @ Chhota Vs. State Of Punjab (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2539 OF 2014) Date of Decision : 21.11.2016.In cases relating to voice/video recording : the absence of tampering, identity of voice (confirmed through ‘voice samples’ taken before the magistrate and subsequent examination through Forensic Labs) is extremely crucial.Another contentious question in this regard that came up in a series of cases was : whether a witness who is seeking to prove an electronic record can be allowed to depose in the court in his examination in chief as to the conditions of S.65B as sufficient compliance. The answer to this question has to be ‘No’. When the statute demands something to be done in a specific manner, it has to be done in that manner alone and the procedure cannot be circumvented. Therefore, the requirement of certificate u/s 65B cannot be satisfied by a witness deposing as to these conditions, in the examination in chief. This is the import in the decision of Jagdeo Singh and Ors. Vs. The State (MANU/DE/0376/2015)Proof of SMSIn case of proof of SMS, the original handset can be led in evidence as primary evidence. In case of extracted copy of SMS, certificate u/s 65B of the IEA becomes essential. In both these cases, it is of extreme significance to first of all – clone the mobile phone device, take a backup and operate on the backup copy only. Any alteration of data on the mobile phone will seriously undermine the evidentiary value of the SMS.Proof of EmailIf the email rests on a web based email facility like gmail/yahoo etc – A printout of the email (alongwith meta data/header information (required u/s 7 of the IT Act) has to be accompanied with a certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act, given by the person operating the account and taking the printout. Section 88A of the Evidence Act also provides for certain presumptions with respect to receipt of emails, which may be useful in proof of email correspondences.In case of server based emails, the certificate ought to come from the incharge of the computer servers.In all these cases, the preservation of what is called ‘meta-data’ is extremely crucial. Simply put, meta data is data about data and contains information relating to date/time/origin/authenticity/access date of the data, which goes on to strengthen, or destroy its evidentiary or believability quotient. (More on this on our piece of digital forensics!)There might be one more provision that may become important insofar as emails are concerned :-Section 88A – Presumption as to Electronic Messages. It reads :“The Court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed into his computer for transmission; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was sent.” .Simply put, the presumption in this section is to the effect that data sent by email from X computer corresponds to data received at Y computer. The court may not draw the presumption, or the same may be rebutted, being a rebuttable presumption of fact. Besides this, there is no presumption as to the identity of the sender as the section makes clear.In addition to this, under section 65B it has to be proved that the computer during the relevant period was in the lawful control of the person proving the email [Babu Ram Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Krishan Kumar Bhatnagar & Ors. 2013 IIAD (Delhi) 441].In Abdul Rahaman Kunji Vs. The State of West Bengal [MANU/WB/0828/2014] the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta while deciding the admissibility of email held that an email downloaded and printed from the email account of the person can be proved by virtue of Section 65B r/w Section 88A of Evidence Act. The testimony of the witness to carry out such procedure to download and print the same is sufficient to prove the electronic communication.Proof of Bank Statements, whether compliance of S.65B essential ?This is governed by a special law. As per the Bankers Book Evidence Act, (Sec 2A of BBEA), the following three certificates are required to prove a bank statement :-A certificate regarding authenticity of entry/printout by the principal accountant or branch manager.Authenticity certificate from person in-charge of computer system regarding:-Details of Computer SystemProcess of Data StorageSafeguard to protect Computer System and Datathe fact that such computer system operated properly at the material time, he was provided with all the relevant data and the printout in question.Whether a certificate u/s 65B conclusively proves the facts contained in the electronic record and amounts to truth ?The answer has to be a resounding ‘No’. S.65B deals with conditions precedent for admission of the electronic evidence. Compliance of S.65B Evidence Act allows the court to read the document. The court still has to examine relevancy, genuineness, veracity and reliability of the document. The probative worth, that is to say, whether the document has an actual bearing on the case or not or how much weight is to be attached to it, is also to be examined independently.Whether a Certificate u/s 65B of the Evidence Act has to be mandatorily filed along with the printout/CD, or can the same be filed subsequently as well?The earlier view was that the certificate had to be filed alongside the print of electronic record, and not thereafter. However, after the Delhi High Court Judgment in Kundan Singh Vs. The State [MANU/DE/3674/2015], the position in law has been clarified : A certificate u/s 65B can be filed even thereafter, and need not be filed alongside. The witness who had tendered the electronic record in evidence can be recalled u/s 311 of the CrPC for the purpose of producing the certificate. The underlying basis of this view is that initial lapse on the part of the party should not detain the court from having the required evidence before it, which will assist the court in discovery of the truth. The court shall seek all evidence before it which is essential for a just decision of the case. All endeavour is to be made to decide the case on merits, rather than exclude what may be important evidence on technical considerations.What follows is that the certificate can be filed even after filing of chargesheet, and can form part of a supplementary chargesheet u/s 173(8) of the CrPC.Even the Rajasthan High Court in Paras Jain and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, [MANU/RH/1150/2015] has held that : non filing of certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is not an incurable irregularity and can be rectified later on.Whether an objection as to non compliance of S.65B of the Evidence Act can be waived or conceded ?Though there is no direct decision on this point, but if the opposite party admits a printout/CD/DVD etc and does not dispute it, in such a situation, admission acts as waiver of proof and compliance of S.65B IEA to prove the same is not required. An objection as to mode of proof can be waived if not taken at the appropriate stage. Shamsher Singh Verma Vs. State of Haryana [MANU/SC/1345/2015]ConclusionLaw relating to proof of electronic evidence is in a state of huge flux in view of rapid technological advancements. The law is struggling to keep pace with them. Some questions relating to time of filing of certificate have been answered, while some relating to the authorship of the certificate are still to be worked on and authoritative precedent on these points is required

The phenomenon of tendering tape recorded conversation before law courts as evidence, particularly in cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where such conversation is recorded by sending the complainant with a recording device to the person demanding or offering bribe has almost become a common practice now. In civil cases also parties may rely upon tape records of relevant conversation to support their version. In such cases the court has to face various questions regarding admissibility, nature and evidentiary value of such a tape- recorded conversation. The Indian Evidence Act, prior to its being amended by the Information Technology Act, 2000, mainly dealt with evidence, which was in oral or documentary form. Nothing was there to point out about the admissibility, nature and evidentiary value of a conversation or statement recorded in an electro-magnetic device. Being confronted with the question of this nature and called upon to decide the same, the law courts in India as well as in England devised and developed principles so that such evidence, mat be received in law courts and acted upon.The relationship between law and technology has not always been an easy one. However, the law has always yielded in favour of technology whenever it was found necessary. The concern of the law courts regarding utility and admissibility of tape recorded conversation, from time to time found its manifestation in various pronouncement.In Hopes v. H.M. Advocate, 1960 Scots Law Times 264, the court while dealing with the question of admissibility of tape recorded conversation observed as under:New techniques and new devises are the order of the day. I can’t conceive, for example, of the evidence of a ship’s captain as to what he observed being turned down as inadmissible because he had used a telescope, any more than the evidence of what an ordinary person sees with his eyes becomes incompetent because he was wearing spectacles. Of course, comments and criticism can be made, and no doubt will be made, on the audibility or the intelligibility, or perhaps the interpretation, of the results of the use of a scientific method; but that is another matter and that is a matter and that is a matter of value, not of competency.An authoritative and categorical exposition this point is found in Rex v. Maqsud, 1965(2) All ER,461 wherein the Court of Criminal Appeal observed that the time has come when this court should state its views of the law matter which is likely to be increasingly raised as time passes. For many years now photographs have been admissible in evidence on proof that they are relevant to the issues in involved in the case and that the print as seen represents situations that have been reproduced by means of mechanical and chemical devices. Evidence of things seen through telescopes or binoculars which otherwise could not be picked up by the naked eye have been admitted, and now there are devices for picking up, transmitting and recording conversations. In principle no difference can be made between a tape recording and a photograph. The court was of the view that it would wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to be gained by new techniques and devises.In India, the earliest case in which issue of admissibility of tape-recorded conversation came for consideration is Rupchand v. Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1956 Punjab 173. The court in this case though declined to treat tape-recorded conversation as writing within the meaning of section 3 (65) of the General Clauses Act but allowed the same to be used under section 155(3) of the Evidence Act as previous statement to shake the credit of witness. The Court held there is no rule of evidence, which prevents a party, who is endeavoring to shake the credit of a witness by use of former inconsistent statement, from deposing that while he was engaged in conversation with the witness, a tape recorder was in operation, or from producing the said tape recorder in support of the assertion that a certain statement was made in his presence.In S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 a five judges bench of Apex Court considered the issue and clearly propounded that tape recorded that tape recorded talks are admissible in evidence and simple fact that such type of evidence can be easily tampered which certainly could not be a ground to reject such evidence as inadmissible or refuse to consider it, because there are few documents and possibly no piece of evidence, which could not be tempered with. In this case the tape record of the conversation was admitted in evidence to corroborate the evidence of witnesses who had stated that such a conversation has taken place.The Apex Court in Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC147 considered various aspects of the issue relating to admissibility of tape recoded conversation. This was a case relating to an offence under section 165-A of Indian Penal Code and at the instance of the Investigating Agency, the conversation between accused, who wanted to bribe, and complainant was tape recorded. The prosecution wanted to use this tape recorded conversation as evidence against accused and it was argued that the same is hit by section 162 CrPC as well as article 20(3) of the constitution. In this landmark decision, the court emphatically laid down in unequivocal terms that the process of tape recording offers an accurate method of storing and later reproducing sounds. The imprint on the magnetic tape is direct effect of the relevant sounds. Like a photograph of a relevant incident, a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act.The Apex Court after examining the entire issue in the light of various pronouncements laid down the following principles:a) The contemporaneous dialogue, which was tape recorded, formed part of res-gestae and is relevant and admissible under section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.b) The contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act.c) Such a statement was not in fact a statement made to police during investigation and, therefore, cannot be held to be inadmissible under section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.d) Such a recorded conversation though procured without the knowledge of the accused but the same is not elicited by duress, coercion or compulsion nor extracted in an oppressive manner or by force or against the wishes of the accused. Therefore the protection of the article 20(3) was not available.e) One of the features of magnetic tape recording is the ability to erase and re-use the recording medium. Therefore, the evidence must be received with caution. The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the record has not been tampered with.Conditions of Admissibility:The tape recorded conversation can be erased with ease by subsequent recording and insertion could be superimposed. However, this factor would have a bearing on the weight to be attached to the evidence and not on its admissibility. Ultimately, if in a particular case, there is a well grounded suspicion not even say proof, that the tape recording has been tampered with that would be a good ground for the court to discount wholly its evidentiary value as in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72. in the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3, following conditions were pointed out by the Apex Court for admissibility of tape recorded conversation:a) the voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. Where the maker has denied the voice it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker.b) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial.c) Every possibility of tempering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.d) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.e) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.f) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbance.Identification of Voice:As regards the identification of the taped voice, proper identification of such voice is a sine qua non for the use of such tape recording, therefore, the time and place and accuracy of the recording must be proved by a competent witness and the voices must be properly identified. [(See: Yusufalli Esmail Nagree) (Supra)]Transcript:The importance of having a transcript of the tape-recorded conversation cannot be under estimated because the same ensures that the recording was not tampered subsequently. In the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehta, AIR 1975 SC 1788, the Apex Court considered the value and use of such transcripts and expressed the view that transcript could be used to show what the transcriber has found recorded there at the time of transcription and the evidence of the makers of the transcripts is certainly corroborative because it goes to confirm what the tape record contained. The Apex Court also made it clear that such transcripts can be used by a witness to refresh his memory under section 159 of the Evidence Act and their contents can be brought on record by direct oral evidence in the manner prescribed by section 160 of Evidence Act.Nature:Tape-recorded conversation is nothing but information stored on a magnetic media. In the case of Roopchand (Supra), though, Punjab High Court declined to treat tape recorded conversation as a writing within the meaning of section 3 (65) of the General Clauses Act but this view could not be survive for a long and the Apex Court in Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari (Supra) clearly laid down that the tape recorded speeches were "documents as defined by section 3 of the Evidence Act", which stood on no different footing than photographs.After coming into force of the Information Technology Act, 2000, (w.e.f. 17.10.2000) the traditional concept of evidence stands totally reformed. Section 2(r) of this Act is relevant in this respect which defines information in electronic form as information generated, sent, received or stored in media, magnetic, optical, computer memory, micro film, computer generated micro fiche or similar device. Under section 2 (t) ‘ electronic record ’ means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche. Section 92 of this Act read with Schedule (2) amends the definition of ‘evidence’ as contained in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. The amended definition runs as under:“Evidence:- ‘Evidence’ means and includes-(1) all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witness, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry;such statement is called oral evidence;(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence.From the aforesaid provisions it becomes amply clear that the law, as it prevails today, takes care of information stored on magnetic or electronic device and treats it as documentary evidence within the meaning of section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act.Utility/ Evidentiary Value:The next question regarding evidence of the tape-recorded information, is about utility and evidentiary value. In this respect following points require consideration:a) Whether such evidence is primary or secondary?b) Whether such evidence is direct or hearsay?c) Whether such evidence is corroborative or substantive?The point whether such evidence is primary and direct was dealt with by the Apex Court in N. Sri Rama Reddy v. V.V. Giri, AIR 1971 SC 1162. the court held that like any document the tape record itself was primary and direct evidence admissible of what has been said and picked up by the receiver. This view was reiterated by the Apex Court in R.K. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157. in this case the court ordained that when a court permits a tape recording to be played over it is acting on real evidence if it treats the intonation of the words to be relevant and genuine. Referring to the proposition of law as laid down in Rama Reddy’s case (Supra), a three judges bench of the Apex Court in the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdas Mehta, AIR 1975 SC 1788 propounded that the use of tape recorded conversation was not confined to purpose of corroboration and contradiction only, but when duly proved by satisfactory evidence of what was found recorded and of absence of tampering, it could, it could subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act, be used as substantive evidence. Giving an example, the Court pointed out that when it was disputed or in issue whether a person’s speech on a particular occasion, contained a particular statement there could be no more direct or better evidence of it than its tape recorded, assuming its authenticity to be duly established.From the aforesaid it can well be gathered as a settled legal proposition that evidence of tape recorded conversation being primary and direct one it can well be used to establish what was said by a person at a particular occasion.Corroboration/Contradiction:Under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, a witness may be corroborated by his/her previous statement. Section 145 of the Act permits use of a previous statement for contradiction of a witness during cross-examination. Again clause (1) of section 146 provides that during cross examination, question may be put to a witness to test his veracity. Section 153 generally deals with exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity. However, exception (2) of it permits a witness being contradicted if he has denied any fact which was put to him to impeach his impartiality. Section 155 (3) deals with impeaching the credit of a witness liable to be contradicted.The Apex Court in N. Sri Rama Reddy (Supra) after considering the matter laid down that the evidence of the tape recorded conversation/statement apart from being used for corroboration is admissible for the purposes stated in Section 146 (1), Exception (2) to section 153 and section 155 (3) of the Evidence Act.