iii. Rupa Sunwar Versus Krishna Gopal Shrestha, Minister of Education, Science and Technology24 In this case, the court has explained about the process by which any online conversation should be presented before the bench. The court mandated that access to these conversations (i.e. online communication) should be supervised to prevent unauthorized access to other data and personal information. This supervision requires the presence of an officer from the court's information and technology department, an IT expert, and either the applicant, their representative, or their legal counsel during the access process. iv. Ram Bahadur Thapa v Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority25 The Chapter 9 of the Evidence Act, 1974, states, "Any statement made otherwise than before the court may be proved." The statement made by the parties through oral, written, or conduct can also be considered as evidence. If the matter disclosed is not contrary to the provisions stipulated in the Evidence Act, 1974, Chapter 9(2)(c), then it can be considered as evidence. There is a need for further guidance from the law regarding the collection and regulation of matters collected through electronic means. In this regard, there may be ambiguity arising from some inadequacies in taking special evidence. However, this does not mean that evidence collected through electronic means, such as CDs, should not be accepted as evidence in the case. The court cannot ignore the unprecedented developments and advancements in the field of science and technology and its relevance to judicial interpretation. v. Sita Devi Thakur et al versus Budhani Thakur 26 This case is related to DNA test report with the use of Identifier kit, where the expert who gave the test report appeared before the court and explained the process in detail, and there was no question in regard to the expertise of the expert. The court has explained that when any suggestion, report has been obtained from concrete and scientific arguments and chemical tests, and the expert has testified the process and verdict and 24 25 26 077-WO-1236, Certiorari, Supreme Court. The case involves filling application regarding allegations of discrimination and untouchability and the court had issued an interim order directing the investigative authority to restrict their access to mobile conversations strictly between the involved parties. Decision Number: 9880 - Bribery for Receiving a Bribe Section: 59 Year: 2074 Month: Paush Volume: 9 Decision Date: 2073/09/04 7227, Supreme Court, Joint Bench, Decision Date: 2073/09/04, 071-CR-1089, Case: Bribery for Receiving a Bribe NKP 2067, Volume 11, Decision Number 8501 18