 wheels that there's a requirement. And in the process that you can strengthen yourself mentally and equip with the knowledge. We have been holding webinars. We have done more than 300 webinars as such. This is the part two after the break we took from 5th of February for one month. And in this series, we have today called upon. Yuvraj Narangar, a young lawyer and who's known for his, the manner in which he takes things forward. And we keep on discussing about the electronic evidence, which I can say for people like us, that's a new fact, the way the evidence has developed with the changing times. Therefore, proving, authenticating, and disproving the electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. What is the legal journey as such? And what is the way of that thing? Therefore, without taking much time, I would request Mr. Yuvraj, since the today's session is with Taksha Legal, a legal platform in Karnataka, who have joined hands with that. And Mr. Basraj is a former member, is a member bar console of Karnataka. And those who have missed our previous webinars can connect us with like, they can like, share and subscribe to the YouTube channel of Beyond Law CLC for the previous webinars and the upcoming webinars. What do you Mr. Yuvraj? Thank you, Vikashe. I hope I'm audible. And yes, thanks for having me here on this wonderful platform of Beyond Law CLC. Yes, so before I begin, I must tell you that I want to really make today's webinar as practical as possible. Because I think the time has come for us to really think more practically towards the digital evidence rather than be theoretical. So, but don't worry, I wouldn't be presuming that you know the basics. We will start from basics and then we will escalate it and we will go to little advanced discussions and we will go to forensics maybe in last couple of minutes, I'll give you some hands-on experience of how the really cyber forensics are very basics of it, how it works. First, let me ask myself few questions. And in fact, I want you to find the answers to those questions as we go along. Now, we all know that the 65E certificate is required along with the electronic evidence and all that is required. Suppose in a testamentary suit, I want to pose three questions that just struck me while I was thinking about this webinar. Suppose in a testamentary suit, the person who propounds the will, he wants to file on record certain email communications between the person who died, the testator and his attorney. Just to show that the will has come naturally, there are no tamperings, this has come in the natural course of business. Now, if he wants to produce those emails in evidence, would that be an electronic evidence? The answer will be empathic, yes, because it is the electronic evidence because they are the emails. Question is, can this person, the propounder of the will, can he file the 65B certificate? The answer would be really no, because if you look at section 65B, it is only the person who is in charge of the computer system. He can file the certificate under 65B. Then what do the person do? Because the person who can do this is already died, the testator, he is no more. The another party to this email communication is the lawyer himself, the lawyer of the testator. But he will raise his hands, he will say, sorry, I am bound by the privileged communication, we all are aware section 126. I am not supposed to divulge anything. I am not going to sign this certificate. So what are the options that the person has got? Otherwise the court will say, sorry, look at the latest judgment of Supreme Court. I am not accepting your evidence unless you give a 65B certificate. Look at this situation, what the person is supposed to do. Take another example. If suppose if I am a police officer, I go to the home of the accused and I seize, I confiscate certain materials, maybe CD or a hard drive or something of that sort. Now I want to produce them in the court of law. Can I compel the accused to file a certificate of 65B? The question is very simple, but the answer is very difficult that I can't because it will be strictly against the rules of self-incrimination that we all are aware of. Article 20 of our constitution, we can't compel someone to self-incriminate. So I can't compel, then what's the way for me to file 65B certificate? How do I go ahead with this situation? Take another example. In a vacation, I want to file a suit on the basis of a registered cell did. But my registered cell did is, let's say lying in Bangalore, I am in Mumbai. So what I do, I ask my friend at Bangalore to just click on a WhatsApp, the snapshot of the registered cell did and send it across. He does it, he takes a registered cell did, he goes to my office, he takes photographs and he sends it to, he sends it on my WhatsApp. I take a print or I don't take a print. I directly file that mobile in the court because you all are aware, in fact, we will go to that discussion a little later that if you file the electronic evidence or if you file that digital device itself in the court, then Justice Nariman has now said that you don't require 65B certificate that will go in as a primary evidence. So assume that the mobile on which on my internet friend has sent me the WhatsApp, I directly file that in the court. Now what treatment should the court give it to that mobile? Is it a primary evidence? Should that directly go into the evidence? Or the court should say, sorry, Mr. where you have a registered cell did, you can't withhold your best evidence. You have to get that, I'm discarding this evidence or should I treat it as a secondary evidence under section 63? Now these are some of the questions that in fact, they are going to haunt us in the coming future because of a conundrum that has been created by certain decisions. And in fact, we are going to try our way out of all this while we discuss. And therefore to begin with Flint, let me tell you very frankly that the whole issue is caused because of certain few observations in some of the judgments. And we have ways and means to overcome these problems. Only we need to be little creative. And this is probably is going to my endeavor today that how to look at these problems from a practical perspective. Let us begin with very basic friends. We all know what is a primary evidence. That section 62 tells us that when the document itself is produced for the inspection of the code, we call it a primary evidence, fine. In fact, before the year 2000, before the IT Act came, we did not have special provisions. We used to prove all the electronic material with the help of primary and secondary evidence under section 62 or secondary evidence as is defined under section 63. We all know there are certain situations in which you can go for leading of secondary evidence, which of course is again given in the chapter. Then came in the year 2000, a provision of section 65A and section 65B. Now, this is a very interesting provision. The reason I am calling it as an interesting, if you look at the margin of these two sections, it talks of admissibility of electronic evidence. Friends, we all are aware that the concept of admissibility is different from the concept of relevancy, is different from the concept of probative value. I'm not going into those basics that they are three different concepts. For example, just to give you a basic example for my friends who have just joined or probably for the friends who are doing law. Suppose if I want to produce in the court of law my communication with my client, that is relevant, but that is inadmissible. That's privileged communication. If I want to produce on the record, the communication my client had with his father that may be admissible, but that is irrelevant. So basically relevance and admissibility are two completely different concepts. Section 65A and 65B, which were brought into effect by virtue of IT Act of 2000, only talks of admissibility, mind you. And these are going to have some repercussions on the discussion that we are going to have. So please remember, we are going to talk on the admissibility. So just to tell you the chronology of any electronic evidence, the life cycle is like this. If you look at section 136 of Indian Evidence Act, it talks of relevancy. It says that the judge has power to admit into evidence something which he feels is relevant to the dispute. So the court has, and so before admissibility comes relevancy, technically speaking, in the practical parlance, the things are not like that in the court. Court might say, let me first admit the evidence and then we will go into relevancy. But if you look at the scheme of the Indian Evidence Act, section 136 says that before admitting that, the court may look into the relevancy. So the scheme is like this section, 136 will tell us what is relevant for electronic evidence. Then we go to section 65A and 65B for admissibility of electronic evidence, the topic that we are going to discuss maybe in couple of minutes. And then comes if there is any issue about the genuineness of that electronic record. If the defendant or if the opponent raises some issue about the genuineness of that electronic record, then we have to go to section 22A of the Indian Evidence Act. And we are going to, so basically the thing is like the 136, 65A, 65B, and then we go, if necessary, we go to section 22A. Now, let us begin with 65A. 65A is interesting, I said, because if you look at 65A, it says that electronic evidence may be proved in accordance with 65B. We all are taught in the law, I'm sorry. I just received the comment not audible. Am I audible? Is it fine? Yeah, okay. So basically it says electronic evidence may be proved. Anyone of you who has got the Bayer Act, I would request you to just hold the Bayer Act. It says may. Now the word may indicates that this is merely an enabling provision. Law does not mandate that if the electronic evidence has to be proved, it has to be proved this way. And therefore may word can be interpreted to mean that this is merely an option. It is not a compulsion. But we will go there in little bit in the next 10 minutes that the Supreme Court has now negated this view. But just to note, just note the word may. It is going to be of some relevance in the time to come. Then come section 65B. 65B friends begins with the clause notwithstanding. This is an important clause which is going to return us for next 10 minutes. Let me tell you. The notwithstanding is the clause in 65B which has given birth, I would say, to four judgments. Four very crucial judgments that we are going to discuss in next 10 minutes. And then we are going to go ahead. The first judgment you had on this clause was Naujot Sandu's judgment, which if you remember was way back in the year 2005. Then the next you had was PV unversed judgment which you got in the year 2014. Then you had the Shafi Mohammed case 2017 followed by the latest one which is Arjun Panditra Khotkar which we got in the last few months of 2020-2020. Now, how notwithstanding gave birth to these four judgments? See the earlier view in Naujot Sandu's case was the Supreme Court said that, look here, 65A is an enabling provision. It uses the word may. The party may go to 65A and B for electronic evidence. Party may choose not to go for it. If the party so wants, party can lead the regular primary and secondary evidence as it was being done pre-2000 era and therefore it is merely an enabling provision. This was the view that was taken in Naujot Sandu's case. First, this view held the field for 11 long years till it was overruled by the court in PV unversed in the year 2014. In PV Unversed Supreme Court said, sorry, don't read word may, read the word notwithstanding. These clause gives overriding effect to 65A and 65B. Out goes section 62, 63, 64. What remains is only 65A and 65B. You cannot prove any electronic evidence unless you comply with 65B. And therefore the view that was there good for 11 years completely gone away. Then came another interesting judgment of Shafi Mohammed. That came I think in the year 2017. Shafi Mohammed Supreme Court said, it's fine that you have to have 65B. But what about a situation where the person who is not in charge of the device has to submit an electronic evidence. Suppose if I print something from the mobile of my wife and I put that in the court. Can I vouch for something that is printed from a mobile of my wife? Obviously not. She is the person who is in charge of the mobile, in charge of the device, in charge of the system. So the court says that if the person who is going to put that certificate is not in the management of the device, then in those situation relaxation can be given, some leniency can be shown, and someone can be relieved of the burden of 65B. This is what the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Shafi Mohammed said. And they did all this in the garb of clarification of PV Anwar, let me tell you. Then came the recent judgment of Justice Nariman, of three judges bench, which was a reference basically. And that was in the case of Arjun Pandit Raghutkar where the Supreme Court said, this is not done. Shafi Mohammed could not have in the garb of clarification cannot negate the ratio of PV Anwar. One thing is clear that 65A and 65B is a complete court, you cannot even look at primary and secondary evidence. And the Supreme Court says is if it's your problem that how to get that person who is in management of the device, look here, we are giving you the list of sections, we are giving you the list of provisions, whereby you can summon that person for 65B certificate. So your problem is solved. So the Shafi Mohammed was overruled. So friends, we first got Naujot Sandhu, followed by we got PV Anwar, then Shafi Mohammed. And finally friends, we got this Arjun Khotkar. The reason I said notwithstanding is so crucial because it's on the notwithstanding that we have got a lot of jurisprudence coming in. Now after notwithstanding, look at the words. Any information, I'm not really going by section but you can have a look at the section. Any information contained in an electronic record, printed on a paper or copied, stored or recorded in optical or magnetic media. Now let's pause here for a moment. And friends, we are going to in fact, dissect the section this way. I'm going to read out something. I'm going to pause. I'm going to explain and then we are going to go ahead because today I want to discuss not only proving but I want to discuss disproving of the electronic evidence and the devil lies in the details. So I want to dissect each word. Any information contained in an electronic record, printed on a paper, it's understandable. Email, I print, fine. Or stored, copied, recorded in optical or magnetic media. These are two devices basically like a hard drive you have magnetic or you have CD or DVD that's called optical. So it may be either on the paper or on hard drive or on a CD, DVD. Let me tell you just an interesting on a side note that there are few people who say technical people that pen drive is neither of this. Of course, pen drive is not a paper. Pen drive is not optical. Pen drive is not magnetic. So pen drive is technically pen drive or memory card. You know the flash memories that we have on our mobile that is not a magnetic or optical media. So if technically looking at it, one may argue that pen drive, if you want to submit or a memory card you are not bound by 65B because 65B is applicable only for paper, optical and magnetic. But I think that's not the interpretation because if you look at the mischief rule of interpretation, a very well-known because in Golden you look at what the legislature had said. And in mischief you look at what the legislature meant. Now if you look at what legislature meant legislature really wanted to include all kinds of electronic records. So I think that's not the ideal way of looking at it but on a side note, you all must remember that solid straight drive like a flash drive or pen drive is not within the scope technically speaking of 65B. Fine. So printed on a paper and so and so. It shall be deemed to be a document. The next words in 65B is it shall be deemed to be a document. Now this is what we call as a deeming provision. Now why do we require a deeming provision? Because if you look at Indian Evidence Act word document has not been amended. Like the word evidence is amended. The word document is not amended and therefore the law has to create this deeming fiction in this section that if there is an electronic record it shall be deemed to be a document. But when only if you comply with the conditions which are mentioned in this section. There are four technical conditions and one non-technical condition. What do I mean by technical? What do I mean by non-technical? We will see in a while. So it will be deemed to be a document on compliance of conditions mentioned in this section. And it shall be admissible in the evidence without production of the original. Please understand, please mind these words. It shall be admissible into evidence without production of the original. So therefore the Justice Nariman has now said that if you bring the original device itself in the court then 65B is not necessary. But if you can't bring the original server, original computer, original mobile to the court then yes you have to comply with these conditions. And what? It shall be admissible into evidence. Again note the contents. It shall be admissible as a proof of contents of the original. So if you comply with these conditions of 65B, it is considered to be proof of contents, okay? Please mind it is not the proof of veracity of contents. These two are again different concepts. There is a very good judgment of Jaimen jewellery exports. I will in fact, let me tell you that I will be circulating maybe the relevant judgments with the organizers. So I don't bother you with writing the citations. They're very beautiful judgment. In Jaimen jewellery the Supreme Court, the High Court had said that look here, if you comply with 65B, it is merely it's evidence of the contents. It's not evidence of veracity of the contents. And just to give an example to the students, suppose if someone, A sends B an email calling B as a fraud person. B goes to the court files a suit for deformation. B wants to put that email in the evidence. And B files 65B certificate. Now filing of this 65B will only prove that yes, A had indeed sent that email to B. It will not prove that B is actually a fraud person, okay? So it's merely the proof of contents. It's not the proof of veracity of the contents. That has to be independently proved. And in fact, as I told you Jaimen jewellery, there is a very beautiful judgment of Om Prakash Berlia of Bombay High Court. Om Prakash Berlia, that's I think 1983 judgment. Where the courts have very beautifully distinguished between the proof of contents and between proof of veracity of the contents, okay? Fine. So we got this that not withstanding so and so any information contained in an electronic record printed on a paper stored, recorded, copied in optical or magnetic media shall be admissible on following conditions without production of the original as a proof of contents. Fine. Which are these conditions? They are four conditions. And here our journey into disproving begins. Unfortunately, friends in India, we in 65B, lot many people keep on asking, tell me the format of 65B, share the format. And that's the most unfortunate part. There cannot be a set format of 65B and here we have went really wrong because without application of mind, we are drafting 65B one. And as lawyers, we need to really, really look into what 65B says rather than taking it at its face value. I'll explain this. Which are these four conditions? Just kindly have a look at these four conditions and I'll make my point. The first condition that you will find in section 65B2, the first condition, the computer output is produced during the period when the computer is used regularly for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on by the person having lawful control. So you get three, four things. That the computer output is produced during the period when computer is used regularly, one for the purposes of activities regularly carried on, second. And thirdly, by the person having lawful control. Take a example of a CCTV, I'll give an illustration. So you understand this. Suppose there is a prevention of corruption act case. And in a mall, in a city, that government officer is going to come to accept that amount of a bribe. Now, the police machinery wants to capture this in a CCTV footage as a proof. They, now what happens? They take the CCTV, they put that before forensic laboratory, they file that in the court with charge sheet. Now tell me, suppose if that CCTV in the mall was not working just a day prior to, it was not working. The police came there, they laid a trap and they made sure that CCTV is now working. Can we say that that computer was being used regularly? The answer is no. That is not the case. One, take another case in the same illustration. That CCTV has to have a DVR for recording the footage. You know, every CCTV comes with a DVR. Either it has to have a hard drive or it has to have the memory card. So it has to be stored somewhere. Assume a case that that day that CCTV does not have any DVR, does not have a memory card, okay? So what the police do? They run to the counter, billing counter and they say, give me some memory card or give me something to store and the CCTV otherwise is not functional. So the cashier there gives him the memory card of the billing desk and gives it for CCTV recording, fine? And they record the footage on that. Now look at the condition. Can we say that that device was being used for the purposes of activities regularly carried on? Technically the answer is no. The regular activity of that memory card is not storage of the video footage. It is the storage of the data, that billing data. So technically even the second condition goes out of place. Take a third scenario. I'm the private person who has filed that prevention of complaint case and I wanted the police to lead a trap, fine? The police is not cooperating, you know, to make the trap good, to make the trap stronger. So what I do? I'm a software engineer. I hack into the CCTV machine and I make sure that angle of CCTV is exactly on that government servant who is standing there to take a bribe. I have hacked into the system or I go and I bribe that cashier or the IT manager and say, boss key, just make that CCTV focus on that guy. Tell me one thing. If I'm the one who is running that machine, if I'm the one who is hacking into that machine, can I be said to be the person having lawful control over the device? Answer is no. So in a same case, in a CCTV case, a classic CCTV example, the first condition fall foul off. We did not have the computer being used regularly. We did not have the memory card so it was not being used for the activities regularly carried on. And thirdly, it was by the person who did not have any lawful control over it. And that's how you have to really, really look at section 65B certificate. Because what we do? Because of the language of 65B, we are so blinded. Otherwise, the peripheral vision of the lawyers is awesome. But because of the language of the technical language, we just take every 65B at its face value. Look at the second condition and we will try to decode this. If you look at the second condition, it says the computer output as derived. Please look into the words. Computer output is derived as derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the business, fine? It is derived when it was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of business. In classic evidence act, we have called is a race geshi. You probably have heard this in the ordinary course of business, okay? There is a sanctity and you will find a similar concept in section 32 of the evidence act as well in the ordinary course of business. Look here, the legislature has given undue importance to the regularity of the input rather than correctness of the input. I'll explain this. Take a case of electronic weight scale, okay? You have joined some diet program and he has assured 20 pages in a month. You take an electronic weight scale, not the old one, the new one, electronic weight scale. You stand there every day and you take a maybe if it gives you some cheat or if you make a manually note of it, whatever, or it records somewhere in the memory card. You stand there, your weight is 70 kgs. You next day you go there, it is 72 kgs. You do it regularly month, okay? You regularly are doing it. Plated by clause B, the data was regularly fed into the computer, fine? Okay. And now you want to produce that in the court of law, maybe. Maybe the claim of them that you would lose the weight has gone wrong, so do that. And you want to produce this as a proof. Now imagine, suppose if I, without you knowing, has increased the basic scale from zero to five kgs, okay? I can do that. I can make the initial value not as a zero, but I'll make it five kgs. What will happen? If your weight is 70, it will show as 75. If your weight is 80, it will show as 85 because I have increased the initial value itself by five. So it will go on showing those values. Now look here. The law insists on what? Regularity of the input. Is the input regular? It is absolutely regular. Every day I have stood on the machine, every day I have taken the prints. But still is the data incorrect? It is absolutely incorrect. Because the law unreasonably is on regularity of the input, not on the correctness of the input. So always remember, whenever you look at 65B certificate, you must look it into the regularity aspect one and the correctness aspect second, which is most crucial. And this is not a hypothetical example that I told you in USA. This case actually happened where, you know, there is a breath analyzer. You know, when you're driving rash, then the police will come in and they'll ask you to blow a breath analyzer machine and it will show the alcohol level in your blood. In one of the cases, the accused said that, my Lord, I was not really drunk and there is some problem with the machine. I was not really drunk. Court ordered an investigation into that and to its surprise, the court found that the initial value of that laser was set to some high figure. So therefore, had the result been 10, it was showing 15. If it was 15, actually it was showing 20. And there the court found, it's a very beautiful judgment. I'll again circulate the citation, that if the initial input is itself incorrect, the output is bound to be incorrect. In technology law, this concept is called as garbage in garbage out. If you're garbage, then what you're going to get out is the garbage. Therefore, garbage in and garbage out. Unfortunately, our law has made it garbage in and gospel out, you know, what goes in. Maybe defective, but what comes out is perfectly legal. So I think we should change that approach in the trial, in the course of the trials. Let us look at the third condition. Throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly. You have to say this in 65 B, that throughout the part of the period, the computer was operating properly. You may feel that this is okay, this is a formal clause, but let me tell you in recently, one of my arbitration cases, who this clause becomes really important. Now, of course, the evidence act is not applicable to arbitration, but just to give you an illustration how these clause can assume importance. You know, we have the MFP printers, the multifunction printers, which print, scan, Xerox copy and all that. They are called MFPs. In case of printers, if there is a replacement of DVD, hard drive, then the page count on those machines, on those printers is reset to zero. For example, if this is my HP printer, if it has printed five lakhs pages till date, and I want to prove that these printer has pages, five lakhs pages till date, but if yesterday, if there was any replacement in the drive or if there was any problem with this machine, then the page count becomes zero. And therefore, now it will not show five lakhs, it will show 10, 15, 20, whichever pages I have printed today, it will only show that. And therefore, now you will understand the importance of this clause C. Throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly. This is clause C. Clause D, I would not retain you for longer because it's actually the most of it is a replica of clause B. There are very few technical differences which are not of really much relevance today. So the point is that you have to have these four conditions in place which I call as a technical conditions. And as a lawyer, as a trial lawyer, we should be able to decode a certificate of 65B by going into the nuances of this certificate. Now, what is that one non-technical requirement which I've spoken about? That is filing of a certificate. These certificate friends you would get in section 65 capital B, subsection four, the certificate that you have to file to prove this electronic evidence. Now, let us look at that certificate. Again, there are very interesting points. The certificate has to say three things. First, the certificate has to identify the electronic record. What is that record? If it's a printout, it's a CD, it's DVD, fine. The certificate has to identify that. If it's a CD, you have to say that this make of the CD is this much. This is the memory. This is the capacity. This is what I have done to secure it. X, Y, Z. Second, the certificate has to identify the particulars of the devices involved in the production of the record. Please mind these words. I'll repeat. The certificate has to literally give the particulars of devices involved in the production of the electronic record. I'll tell you the practical significance of this. Take the same case of CCTV in the mall. That CCTV has captured that bribery footage, fine. Then what did the police do? They took the DVR. They transferred that footage into their own laptop, fine. They took it to police station. They registered in that register that they seized this, right? It's a property. They send it to forensic lab on a CD. Forensic lab will analyze it on some different CD. So the original footage remain intact. Forensic lab gives a report and sends that CD to public prosecutor with the report. Public prosecutor will make another CD of it, you know? On his own laptop because they have to give it to the accused under section 207 of CRPC. No, imagine how many devices are involved in the production of this electronic record. Generally what we do, we just look at the last device involved in the production of the electronic record from where the print has come, which machine has made the CD, who has made its copy. That is not the only aspect. You have to look at it from the beginning that who is the person who was in charge of the CCTV? See, the point is this. 65B certificate is required, no doubt. Admitted. But can the forensic analysts give a certificate of the CCTV which is installed in them all? Can it vouch for its correctness? Answer is obviously no. If the public prosecutor is making copies of that CD or footage, can he vouch for what happened in the cyber forensic laboratory? Obviously not. It is the CCTV IT department, the IT department of the mall alone which can vouch for the correctness of the footage one. It is the only cyber forensic laboratory which can vouch for the correctness of the entries, whatever happened within the walls of the forensic lab. And it is the public prosecutor's office alone which can vouch for the correctness of the copies which are made. So remember this is what we call as a concept of contemporaneous certification. The contemporaneous certification means that there can be multiple certificates. In fact, I might use the word not there can be there, there are ideally there have to be multiple certificates for a single piece of electronic evidence to make it admissible. And in fact, this concept is very beautifully mentioned by the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kamal Patel. Again, as I told you, I'll give that citation, I'll circulate. It's a very beautifully written judgment of Kamal Patel of MP High Court. Where the High Court has said that look here, it's not only one certificate, at each point of time, the electronic record has changed the hands and therefore at each point of time, there has to be a separate certificate. And in fact, in the technical law, we call it as a concept of chain of custody. You know, chain of custody, there are several chains, procurement, acquisition, storage, analysis, forensic analysis, preparation of a report and submission in the court. This is the life cycle of an electronic evidence. So at each of these stages, you have to have a different certificate. This is what we call as a chain of custody concept. Okay, then second week completed, particulars of the devices involved in the production. The third one is that dealing with any of the matters which section 65B2 relates to, that's I think it's very easy to understand. The four technical conditions that we spoke about, then the certificate can deal with those conditions if they are applicable. Now mind you, little digression, but important. Justice Nariman in the recent judgment of Arjun Khotkar had said, if you look at section 65B4, it says certificate doing any of the following will do. Any of the following means it can deal with A or it can deal with B or it can deal with C. But Justice Nariman has said no, sorry. It means all of the following. So in fact, your certificate has to deal with all these three aspects. So my advice will be not to fall foul of this judgment. Make sure that even if yours is a case which does not really warrant dealing with all these conditions, it is better that you specifically mention this. For example, I'll give an example. Suppose there is a virus attack on my mobile or my laptop. I suffer certain damages. I want to claim a compensation. I go to the code and I say that, look, on this and this day, there was a virus attack on my computer. There was a malware attack, fine. Now tell me, am I going to say that this data was regularly fed into my system? Obviously not. This was not a regular thing. This was out of blue moon. On a certain day, there was an attack. So technically this condition does not really apply to me. The data being regularly fed. This is once in a blue moon attack on my laptop. But it is better that in the light of Arjun Panditraov's ratio, that you specifically mention as to why this condition does not apply to you. And then you say this out in the 65B certificate. Then who has to sign this certificate? And let me, as I told you, I'm not going to give you the formats. There are judgments of arc shipping corporation. If you wish, I'll share the citations as well, where the high courts in some judgments have reproduced the certificates. But I would not call them an ideal certificate. I think the ideal certificate is the one that you make for your own case, which is a customized one. And we will see maybe in a couple of minutes how to make an ideal one for different kinds of electronic evidences. Then who has to sign it? Again, the interesting discussion comes up. It has to be signed by the person who is in an official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or management of the relevant activities. So it has to be signed by the person who occupies a responsible official position. Here comes the logic of Shafi Muhammad. If you remember, I told you that what if you don't get the person who is in official position? And there Arjun Kothkar courts have said, look at four, five sections. I'll tell you which of them. The first one, the Supreme Court has said section 165 of the evidence act. That section gives right, unfettered right to the court to order production of any document or thing. So the Supreme Court has said, look here, you have a section to call that person. I'll give you an example. Suppose if I purchase certain medicals from a medical shop, certain medicines from a medical shop, that medical shop walla gives me a computer printout. Fine? Now I want to let's say file a case of a deficiency in services. Maybe for whatever reasons. I want to put that medical build into the evidence. Can I compel that medical shop owner to get him to give me the 65B certificate? Because I can't give, it is his system. It has to be the person responsible for that device. I am not the person. So the Supreme Court has said in such cases, forget it, don't do it. Arjun Kothkar the court says, no, look at section 165, you can do that. So that's one section. You can call him to the court. You can compel him to give 65B certificate. One. Second provision the court has said order 16 rule six of CPC. That also gives you another right to call any person or summon any person to produce a document. That's again very interesting provision. Third provision, friends, you would find in section 91 of CRPs, which all of you would be aware of, or summons to produce a document or a thing. That's section 91. And finally you have section 311 where the courts have got 311 of CRPC I'm talking of where the courts have got ample powers to summon any witness or examine any person at any stage. That's the beauty of it. At any stage it can be done. So the Supreme Court has said that look at these conditions, you can call the person and you can get 65B. Now, this certificate has to be to the best of knowledge and belief. Look at the section again. Please look at 65B4. The certificate has to be to the best of knowledge and belief. Now it can be either knowledge or it can be belief. This is what Justice Nariman has also said. It can't be knowledge and belief. I'll tell you how. Suppose you are the person who wants to add use that CCTV into the court, okay? You are let's say public prosecutor's office. You want to produce that certificate in the court. Can you vouch for the correctness of CCTV system you can't? So you can say in my belief, that that system was working regularly, okay? That's to the belief. But when it comes to PP office computer, you can't say it on belief. You have to say in my knowledge, these copies were made, these copies were made perfectly without there being any tampering. So for the machines which are not within your position or power, you said to the best of my belief. For the machines which are within your knowledge and capacity, you say to the best of my knowledge. So and therefore Justice Nariman says very rightly, that it can't be both knowledge and belief. Either it has to be knowledge or it has to be belief, okay? One, now I think let us complete the circle where we started. The testament repetition, you remember where it is not possible or an accused. He can't be compelled because of self-incrimination, rule against self-incrimination. What happens in these cases? Now in one of the paragraphs and another two paragraphs, I think that's para 49 of the judgment. Justice Nariman has said if there is an impossibility of procurement, if it is impossible for you to procure, then you can be relieved of the obligation of producing 65B certificate. I think and that was the window I was talking to you about. This small window has been left open. Now there can be a really a discussion whether this is the dictate under article 142 of the constitution. I think if you are all aware of that to do the complete justice between the parties, the Supreme Court can in certain situation expand the law or go beyond the law to do the justice. But in my humble submission, that's not a pronouncement under article 142. I think it can be used as a precedent because the Supreme Court in Arjun Panditra has given a detailed discussion of the proposition that law does not compel someone to do the impossible. And so the Supreme Court has said that if it is impossible for you to procure, then you can be relieved of an obligation to get that certificate. But I think, mind you, I think there is a major caveat here that the practitioners who are going to use this impossibility defense, they have to really, really show that how it is impossible. And I think there are very few situations where it is impossible, fine? So I think this is very important. Then the question that is I normally ask there under what section do you prove that document? I think 136 has got wide powers, has given wide powers for the court to admit into evidence anything which he feels relevant. That should not be a problem. Then the point that we are talking about disproving, how do we disprove? So I would strongly urge all of you to read a very beautiful judgment of Justice Murlider. In the case of Dharambir versus CBI, it's a Delhi High Court judgment where Justice Murlider had said that the accused has got every right to get a mirror copy of the hard drive. Now what is a mirror copy? Mirror copy means a copy bit by bit, okay? Your entire replica has to be given to you. Suppose there are 100 calls, okay? Recorded by the police. Police cannot say that, look here, your calls are hardly three or four out of this 100. We are going to give you only three, four calls for recording, you are not entitled for 100. That's not what is called as a mirror copy. Justice Murlider has said that you are entitled for a mirror copy of it. And why do you need a mirror copy? It is required for a forensic analysis, okay? And why, how forensic analysis we need it, we will see in couple of minutes, next 15, 20 minutes, we will see why the forensic, this is also called as a forensic copy. So it is the right of the accused to get a mirror copy. Now, is it not true also for a civil trial? I think of course, yes. If it is coming with the plant, he has to have the copy, entire copy of the hard drive, the mirror copy. If it is not annexed to the plant, you have a right of discovery under order 11, I think you are again entitled for the mirror copy. Now let us talk of at what stage do you submit this? 65B, now it's a settled position, can be submitted. At any time when you want to read that electronic record in the evidence, I'll give you an example. Is it required at a charge sheet level? No, it is not required at a charge sheet level. It can be produced subsequently. This is what the Supreme Court has now said. There are so many judgments. There is a Sonu versus state of Haryana. Then there is this MR Hiremat versus state of Karnataka. And it is the Arjun Panditrao. The Supreme Court has said that it is required only when the document is getting admitted into evidence. In the context of a civil trial, for example, if in a plant, I annex an email, do I need 65B along with the plant? Of course not. When I want to get that document marked, that time, yes, I will have to have 65B certificate. So that's a settled position that you have to have it when you want to get that admitted into evidence. At what stage do we raise an objection that there is no compliance of 65B or 65B is defective one? This is a crucial question. Because if you don't do that at the right time, then that objection is considered to be waived. And this is what, again, a very good judgment. Most Bombay lawyers would know it is a Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia judgment, full bench of Bombay High Court. Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia, where the High Court, relying on certain very good Supreme Court judgments, has bifurcated the objections in three categories. The objections pertaining to deficit stamp duty, one category. The objections pertaining to more than manner of a proof of a document, second category. And third category, the document which is inherently inadmissible. It can't be read into evidence at all. And the High Court, the full bench had said that the first category where it relates to stamp duty, the objection has to be taken as and when the document is tendered into evidence. You have to take it immediately. So it can be impounded, you know the procedure. When it comes to second category, more than manner of proof, where 65B will fall. The High Court had said, you have to take that objection immediately after that evidence is sought to be marked. If you don't do that, then there are judgments. Probably again, I will give you the citations which have said that in the appellate stage, you can't say, look here, my lords, there was no 65B and all that. The court will say, sorry, the bus is gone. You had the right, you had the chance, you did not avail it, it's now waived. And of course, the last category, it's wide ab initio, inherently inadmissible. For example, the privileged communications. I think again, they can be raised at any point of time. There is no requirement that you have to raise it then and there. So the High Court has said, the third category objection can be raised at any point of time. Now, with the 65B would be required in family matters, my take on that and there are some judgments that would say that, no, it is not required in family matters because section 14 of the Family Courts Act relieves you from these obligations and that gives some leeway. So I think the technical compliance with 65B would not be required in family matters. Because in most of the cases, you will find that there is an allegation of adultery and all, the husband will get the, maybe he will access the wife's mobile and he will get something and then the question will come of 65B. So no technical compliance is required in family matters. Then in arbitration law, again, there is no requirement because you know all section 19 of the arbitration act clearly says that CPC and Evidence Act would not be applicable. So again, in arbitration, I think 65B wouldn't be required technically. In motor vehicles act, yes. There are also judgment of the Bombay High Court of famous one Pushpa Rana or Rana judgment where the Bombay High Court has said in motor vehicles act also it is required. I know there are certain problems which people are discussing that, suppose if a claimant in an injury case, if he has taken treatment in 20 medical, 20 hospitals or if he has taken medicines from 20 medical outlets and they're all computer printouts, then is it required that he has to get 65B for each of the bill? Unfortunately, the answer is today, yes. But let me tell you, there is a very beautiful judgment which I'll again circulate of the Supreme Court which has said that motor vehicles act being a beneficial welfare legislation. Strict canons of procedure should not hinder the way of the claimants. That's what the Supreme Court has said. So I think there is some possibility of we saying that this can be excused in certain cases. But in by and large, in almost all the cases, today as the law stands, you would require 65B certificate. Now, probably I would ask the permission to share my screen and I'll show how some of the tools or how can we make the evidence really look good when we go for 65B certificate. I'll first, in fact, show you what the, I don't know how many of you have heard about hash value. I'll try to show how the hash values are calculated. But before I show you, I'll tell you what it is. Suppose that CCTV example, I'll not really change the example. So that's since that has been now being there for last one hour. CCTV footage is acquired, right? In Mumbai central. And now it has to be, it has to go to police station, then forensic lab, then PPS office and then the court. So it has to travel from all these phases. So the law requires that during all these phases, there should not be a tampering. And how do you ensure that? You take a hash value of the footage at the beginning and you take the hash value of the footage at the end. If both of them match, it is a good proof that it is not tampered. For example, if there is a one lakh pages document or 10,000 pages document and you take a hash value, if you change a single comma in the entire process, then the entire hash value changes. Now what is a hash value? Hash value is nothing but a string of certain alphabets and numbers, numericals, which is short may not be more than 30 digits, which in fact, the entire 1000 pages will be reflected in that string of alphabets and numerals. And if you change a single digit there, this will undergo a change. I'll show you how that really works. And the hash results are very essential part of 65B. For example, you can always give hash values of your data to show to the code that look here, I have not tampered with the data. This is the hash value when I acquired the electronic evidence, okay? And this is the hash value today when I'm filing that in the code of law. So there is no tampering. So I'll, in fact, I'll show you this. But before that, okay, I'll start with the hash value. See, this is a hash tool, which is available to you on any app store. That is not a big deal, the hash tool. Look at here. This is first document. Can you read Euraj here? This is YUVRJ, Euraj. This is a sample one. See, this is sample two. I have just added this A here, Euraj. It was YUVRJ earlier. Now it is YUVARJ. I have added this A. Now I'll just show you. Let us open the hash tool. There are multiple kinds of hash. There is MD5, there is SHA1, but the standard one is MD5. I'll select the first one. Can you see the hash value here? Yeah, the hash value is here, one. Can I ask you something that is it properly visible or do you, or can anyone respond? Is it fine? Increase the font. Okay, I'll maximize the window. I don't think, okay, the notepad font I can increase. I'll do that. But anyways, I think this should be visible, right? The Euraj, these words. Okay, this is what it is. Okay, so now I just took the example of this. I just uploaded the file called Euraj here. Can you see this? This is called as a hash value. One F31, this is the hash value. Now what I will do, I will take another file, sample two, where I had added the word A in Euraj. Look at the hash value here. It is now 5B19DB. A single alphabet has completely led to a change of the hash. Now, if I again go to sample one, you would see again, one F31. So the first one and the third one will be same, but the second one has undergone a change. Now the file that I'm selecting is called as, is of course a data file, but it can be image file, it can be video file, it can be anything, hash value can be made up of anything. So this was just to show you the demo of, this is how the hash values are created. And it will be my advice to all the proponents of electronic evidence, that do make sure that if it's possible, go for hash value, give the hash value of your electronic evidence, make it part of your 65B certificate. Now, when it comes to email, two things about email. I'll show you. See, can you see this email? Here, it looks like it has come from HDFC, right? Now, always make sure that whenever you are printing an email, go for the raw message. This is called as an email header. You will always find that option some, Gmail has different option, Yahoo Mail has got different options. It's in Yahoo Mail, it is here, view raw message. And here, now I'm sorry really, this is very small. In fact, difficult for me as well to read. But just to show you, here you will find here somewhere the IP address of the computer, here. And if you Google this IP address, it will show you from which server this email has come, which part, geographical part this email has come. If it's a proxy server, it's a little difficult, but this is really a part of Cyber Forensics. But always remember, this electronic, this header will show you the real data of an email. Otherwise, it is very difficult to create a spoof email. What do I mean by spoof? I'll show you. It looks like it's- Zoom it out so that people can watch it properly because it's, the size is too small. Okay, let me just, maybe. You can just take two lines and then zoom it and then they're out about it. I'll try to do, I'll try to do. Is it little better now? Is it fine? Yeah, now better, but the entire line is not forthcoming. Okay, no, the point I want to only make is this. Yeah, that's visible. Yeah, that's visible. Okay, see, always remember, if you want to look at the real email idea of a person, you have to just hover the mouse over here. And now you will see the real email idea here. Newsletters at clashwick.com. Now this is by no means coming from HDFC. It looks like HDFC over here, but if you look at here, you would see in the blue letters below, newslettersatclashwick.com. Similarly, now I will in fact show you the header also, since we are now zooming in. Look at this, look here, we'll see this. Can you see this X originating IP somewhere here? Here, originating IP. So this is the internet protocol address of the sender's email. Once you get the IP address, any police station or any cyber forensics can immediately get you the geographical location of that sender's email ID. That's not a big deal. In fact, you can also do that with little study. So this is what is the originating IP, where the email originated, right? Now, if you look at here, it will show the domain, the real domain of the sender. Can you see here, clashwick.com. This is not the HDFC. And this I have taken the real life example from my mailbox. And that is the reason friends, I was telling you, that always make sure that you print the header of the email whenever you want to put that header, the email into the evidence. Again, suppose if you want to put some image in the evidence or some photograph, always again, give the metadata of that file. How do you access the metadata I'll show you? Suppose this is a file, okay? Sample, can you see this file sample? I do right click, I go to properties. This is called as a metadata. It will show you when the file is created, when it is modified, when it is accessed. So if I want to produce this document in the evidence, this one, I will also print this metadata in properties. It's as simple as that. The advanced foreign six experts will tell you, in fact, even this can be tampered, but believe me, this is not really the regular case. So this is taken at its face value and it is always better. Suppose this is the image, I right click, I go to the properties. This will show me all this. So always make a point to put that, put this along with the 65 B. Now I will show you how the images and all they are morphed and how the people really do the morphing and how the experts detect it. This is a little digressing, but I think in two minutes, I'll really want you to see that. It's an interesting thing. This is the forensic tool for me to analyze the images. I'll show you the images first. There are two images. Can you see this boy here now? There is a boy, fine. Now, many a times it so happens that there is a tampering with the image and it will make, it will be made like this. The boy is not there. Or a better example, look at this. Can you see this boat or ship? Fine, this is the real image. It will be shown as this, as if it is sinking. How do they do it? I'll show you. What they do is this. They will take the water, the water portions from here, okay? They will take water portions from here and they will paste it somewhere here in between and they will make it look like that sinking boat. This is called as a cloning and how do the forensic experts find it out? I'll show you the, these are very basics, but just to give you a taste of it, I'll show you. Let us upload the first file. This is fine, right? And now we want to see the morphed one. Now, let us go for a clone detection. Just wait and you will see that it will find out the portions which are copy pasted, which are not otherwise visible for a naked eye. Look at it. This portion has been taken and this has been pasted somewhere here. So the portions have been copied from here. This is called as a cloning and they have been pasted here. Same, if you go to the boy's image, I'll show you. And if I do the clone detection again, the boy was here somewhere. Look, so the portion of the trees is taken from here and it is merged here and the portion of the land has been taken from it is merged here. So this is known as a clone detection technique. There is also error level analysis, noise analysis, but I think today I should not digress a lot because this is not a topic of a forensics. We are more on the legal aspects of it. So just to tell you, friends, this is how the word of cyber forensics works. So make sure that whenever you file into evidence, any electronic record, then as far as possible, as far as possible, I'm not saying in every case it's possible, as far as possible, give complete details. If it's a WhatsApp chat, you can give the entire details. You can, you know, there is a, on the WhatsApp right hand side, you will see there is a right column where you can archive all the messages and you can mail it to yourself. It's better that you produce that in the evidence rather than taking the snapshots and producing that in the evidence. So in every case, you can make it, you can try to make it better and better. So it is not impeached in the course of the trial. So with this, I think I am done, Mr. Vikas. I think it's always important to be a little creative when you are dealing with electronic evidence. And this topic is really, really very vast, but I believe that if you are a little cautious of the nitty gritties of this, then as a lawyer to disprove it, you know, suppose you take a hash value, you insist for a hash value from an expert, if you're cross-examining an expert, you can ask him, where are the hash values when you acquired the evidence? Can you compare those hash values with the, can you compare those hash values with the hash values of the public prosecutor? He may say, no. Then I think that's a good benefit of doubt that you should get for an accused. So these are the best practices you should follow. That may be email header. You can ask the person that where is the email header? Why did you not produce it? If you have not produced it, though you had it, why shouldn't an adverse inference be drawn under section 114 G of the Evidence Act? You withheld the best evidence. So I think with the help of a cross-examination, with the help of going into the details of 65B certificate, I think certainly we can not only prove, but I think what is more important, we can disprove the electronic evidence. Thank you, thanks a lot. The way you simplified the things, that was quite amazing. Thank you. Just like your name sake, I'm just reminded when Stuart Broad was hit for six sixes by Yuvraj Singh, that the ease with which he hit the sixes, the ease with that the same manner you explained the electronic evidence. And you rightly said that this is the new aspect you understood. And those who want to get themselves un-muted, but then they will have to come on the video for asking the questions. And those who want to actually- Sending the citations to Vikash Ji, who circulated. Mr. Yuvraj, I have shared it on the WhatsApp group. They can send a ping on our mobile number. We will join our WhatsApp group. Then they can come to know the judgments. And that will be shared only today. Let's assume somebody says after a month, kindly share it, we will not be done. Yeah, that's it. By the court needs to consider the hash tool generated report, which might be the tool made out of India to consider it as a forensic evidence without even considering the CCTV footage, which has recorded in India that can be analyzed by an engineer. No, sorry, I think- It's a quite big question. Which might be- Maybe shake the tool. Because he's a combo. Engineer plus talk, and I look it, therefore. No, see, frankly, no, no, the question seems to be why do we really need to go for the hash tool, which is generated outside India to consider the evidence which is within India. Let me tell you the cyber evidence of the cyber world is such a field of law, which really knows no boundaries. Now, if there are better tools available, and I must tell you, in fact, the forensic analysis and forensic investigation are so well developed in other countries. And where, in fact, I had a chance to visit for the project that I was in. In fact, I'm in the process of writing the book on this topic. So I had to travel and I had to visit and I had to collect the resources. Let me tell you the resources that these people have got with themselves are amazing. Unfortunately, in India, we are still lacking it. And therefore, I don't see there is any harm of taking help of something that is generated outside India to make sure that whatever you are submitting is true and authentic. And let me also address one more portion. In fact, I probably missed it. See, the electronic evidence when you get a mirror copy, you can always send it to your own analyzer, your own cyber forensic expert for getting evidence in your favor. In your favor, I mean that evidence as your version. Now, that person has to be notified under section 79A. Otherwise, it is not to be held as a valid evidence because if you look at section 45A, whenever you want to get an electronic expert, that lab has to be notified under section 79A. Otherwise, that evidence technically does not carry any value. There are people who also argue that why not section 45 also talks of science so it can be admissible through section 45 or 293 of CRPC. But technically speaking, the expert has to be notified under 79A. There were very few experts notified, but I think now they have started notifying so many laboratories. Yes. Yeah, I'm just checking because on this group we don't have. I'll check it out as to whether we have on the YouTube. Yes. When can the, buy one? When can they accused, deduce electronic evidence like email and how is it their defense, how is it at his defense stage or before or how and how? No, no, sorry, can you come again? Sorry, there was some disputes. He says when can an accused deduce electronic evidence like email and how is it to be used in the defense stage before or after? No, before or after of what? That question is... No, see, I'll tell you in fact if the defense has to produce any evidence. Of course, you know there are someone's trials we have from 239 onwards. Then you have sessions from 225, 251, you have the summary trials. So the stage differs when the defense has to produce the evidence. But yes, the defense can very well put in his evidence. Generally, the defense will be the best benefited by the section 207. He is entitled to the copy of the entire charge sheet. And as I said, Justice Mooledhar has said the mirror copy. So instead of getting his own evidence he can utilize the evidence which is being given by the prosecution to decode it and dissect it and show that it is not a reliable one. Of course, he can get his own piece of evidence. The law of course entitles him to do it. But the stage... Before I take the next question, before I take the next question everybody is writing ad. We won't add, you just send a ping on the WhatsApp number. We will add you there after. This is by Webhav on YouTube itself. In section 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, when can an accused abuse electronic evidence like email and how it is to be used in the defense stage? No, I think the whenever the stage for filing of his defense comes he can file that along with his defense and the 65B certificate would be required. Only when that evidence is to be admitted and marked as an exhibit. So as I told you, the stage for adusing of the evidence would differ as depending on the trial. It's a summons, sessions, summary or whatever. But the procedure remains the same irrespective of civil or criminal that you can file it when your evidence begins. But you have to file 65B as and when you want to get it marked as an exhibit. And let me tell you, suppose in a cross-examination you are aware that you can confront a witness with something under section 145, 137 of Evidence Act with his previous statement to contradict him. If the courts have gone to an extent of saying, I'll also share that citation, that if in a cross-examination, if you want to show some email to him or some electronic record, you can't do that unless you have 65B along with that. So you can't even show something to the witness to contradict him or to refresh his memory unless you have 65B. So the procedure remains the same. Whenever you want to get that into evidence, please get 65B and get it done. Yeah. Yeah. On YouTube, we don't have, I will just check it out as to whether we have on the Facebook. Yes. No. Yes. So thank you, Mr. Yuvraj. I just one question, they have come. Yes. If I have used a computer and then I have returned the computer after using for a year. Now I want to produce some documents which I had while I was using the computer. I have copied that in a pen drive while returning. Now, who has to give that certificate? You have to, the person, because see, if you look at condition A and condition B of 65B2, it says the relevant point of time during the relevant period. Now this relevant period for you will be that one year when the computer was lying with you. So for that computer, also you have to give the certificate. And again, you are the person who has got it to in pen drive. So again, you have made the transfer. Again, you are the person who has to give the 65B. Though that person, see, it is not the 65B does not require that the owner has to give. The person who is in a management of the device, that it was in your management. So, irrespective of the ownership, it is the person who has to, it's you who has to give it. Yeah. Yeah, it is possible to submit a computer as evidence. Why not? In fact, Justice Nariman says it that computer can be tendered into evidence and then that will be a primary evidence. But frankly, let me tell you, I think soon we will have to revisit this proposition of Arjun Panditrao. I personally believe there is nothing primary and secondary in the world of electronic evidence. Everything is secondary, okay? Because the computer understand the binary language, zero one, zero, zero one. And that is a primary, which we can't read. So it has to be a secondary if we want to read it. So whatever you see on the screen, it is always a secondary. So I personally believe that there is nothing as a original and secondary. Though Arjun Panditrao does say that original does not require 65B. For example, even if I'm typing out something, you all are aware if the light goes off, when you restart the computer, you will still have that draft. Why? Because it is copied on a cache memory. It's there on a RAM. So there are already copies made, you know? So which one is the original one? There are no originals and secondaries in this world. But anyways, we probably will have to wait for some another judgment to get a clarification. So Mr. Yuvraj, the session was quite fascinating. And I am quite sure that a lot of people would learn from it and will continue to learn. Subsequently, since we are all, we are already live on the YouTube as well as Facebook. Those who have missed it, from some part, they can always watch it on the YouTube. And before we part for the day, tomorrow, friends, we will be having on the New Industrial Relations Act and Industrial Code 2020 by Mr. Esen Murti. We had already one session with him, but on popular demand, the same topic we are coming across. So do stay connected with us. And they are saying, we should have a session with Yuvraj. We can always request him. He has been kind enough to proceed to our request. And this time before we part, I will request Yuvraj to make a request for social distancing and wearing masks. Because that's also paramount. Because once there is help, then only one can learn the knowledge. You know, I would in fact say this that, of course, where the masks maintain the social distancing. But in fact, I'll say something more that whoever of you are suffering from any physical ailments, their near and dear ones are suffering. I pray to the Lord that let force be with them and they will be cured. May all of you live a very long, healthy life. And whatever possible, maybe financially with your own efforts, let's little go out of comfort zone and help others around us. I think this is the time when I think we are all the human beings first and then respective professionals. I think let's go really out of the way to help the people around us. Let's do it. And it can be a ministerial help, but please do it. And that will matter in the times to come. Please do that. And just reminded that when I was just listening to Mr. Rahul Dravid's interview, he used a famous quote. He said that when he was not getting a break, I'm not saying the professional break of this. It said that he wrote on his candidate Honda that God's delay is not God's denial. So he says, keep on believing yourself. So that's what we can do. Thank you, everyone. Everyone stay safe, stay blessed and do stay connected with us tomorrow for the session. Thank you. Yeah, thanks.