প্রিন্ট ভিউ
[সেকশন সূচি]
১৪। উক্ত Act এর section 73 এর পর নিম্নরূপ নূতন sections 73A ও 73B সন্নিবেশিত হইবে, যথা :-
“73A. Proof as to verification of digital signature.- In order to ascertain whether a digital signature is that of the person by whom it purports to have been affixed, the Court may direct-
(a) that person or the Controller or the Certifying Authority to produce the Digital Signature Certificate;
(b) any other person to apply the public key listed in the Digital Signature Certificate and verify the digital signature purported to have been affixed by that person.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "Controller" means the Controller appointed under sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006 (Act No. 39 of 2006).
“73B. Comparison of physical or forensic evidence with others, admitted or proved.- (1) In order to ascertain whether a sample of blood, semen, hair, DNA sample, any other biological substance, limbs or any part of limb, finger impression, palm impression or iris impression or foot impression belongs to or is created by that person from whom it purports to have been collected, the Court may order that it be compared with any sample which is admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have come from or been made by the person, although that sample of blood, semen, hair, DNA sample, biological substance, limbs or any part of limb, finger impression, palm impression, iris impression, foot impression or any other substance has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.
(2) If there is any claim that the sample of blood, semen, hair, DNA sample, any other biological substance, limbs or any part of limb, finger impression, palm impression, iris impression, foot impression belongs to or is created by any person, the Court may direct that person to be present in Court for the purpose of enabling the Court to make that comparison.
(3) In relation to proving the authenticity of physical or forensic evidence, nothing in sections 60 and 165 of this Act, should prevent the Court from seeking its production in Court as an exhibit, along with any other necessary evidence concerning its identification.”।