Question

Which of the following is not stated in Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, with regard to a certificate to verify the authenticity of electronic evidence?

• A. Signed by both the person in charge of the computer or communication device and an expert, with the certificate adhering to the format prescribed in the Adhiniyam's Schedule.
• B. Qualification of an expert.
• C. The form specified in the Schedule requires that electronic evidence be accompanied by a 'hash value'.
• D. None of the above

Hint:

The BSA 2023 raises the bar for electronic evidence! Always check for the "Hash Value" and the mandatory "Expert signature" to ensure compliance with the new Schedule.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, deals with the admissibility of electronic records. Section 63(4) significantly modifies the previous certification requirements under the Evidence Act.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Section 63(4) and the corresponding Schedule of the BSA, 2023, introduce more comprehensive certification requirements.
- The Act now mandates that the certificate must be signed by the person in charge and an expert (A), it requires the expert's qualifications (B), and it explicitly requires the 'hash value' of the electronic data (C).
- Since all the listed elements are indeed requirements or components of the certification process under the new Act, none of these options is "not stated."

Step 3: Final Answer:
All the provided options are stated or prescribed. Thus, (D) is the correct answer.

Answer 2

The question asks which of three described features is NOT actually stated in Section 63(4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 regarding the certificate needed to authenticate electronic evidence. Each option needs to be checked against what the provision and its Schedule actually require.

1. Signed by both the person in charge of the computer or communication device and an expert, with the certificate adhering to the format prescribed in the Adhiniyam's Schedule: This dual-signature requirement, together with the format prescribed in the Schedule, is part of the strengthened certification regime the BSA introduced, so this feature is in fact stated in the provision.
2. Qualification of an expert: The certification process under the new regime calls for details establishing the expert's qualification, since the expert's competence is what gives the certificate its evidentiary weight. This too is a genuine requirement.
3. The form specified in the Schedule requires that electronic evidence be accompanied by a 'hash value': Including a hash value is one of the technical safeguards the new Schedule builds in to verify that the electronic evidence has not been tampered with, and it is indeed part of what the prescribed form requires.
4. None of the above: Since each of the first three features is genuinely part of Section 63(4) and its Schedule, there is nothing among the first three options that is missing from the provision.

Because all three specific features are indeed found in Section 63(4), none of them qualifies as something "not stated," making the residual option correct.

Therefore, the correct answer is None of the above.