The power under Section 91 of the Code can be exercised before the delivery of judgment, but the Court may assess the relevance of the requested documents and materials during trial.

JUDGMENT

Jay Sengupta, J. - This is a revisional application challenging an order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandi, Murshidabad in Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2021, thereby affirming an order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting an application of an accused under Section 91 of the Code praying for preservation of CCTV footages and phone call records.

2. The petitioner is an accused in GR Case No. 898 of 2021 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandi, Murshidabad corresponding to Salar Police Station Case No. 104 dated 13.06.2021 under Section 498A of the Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She filed an application dated 24.08.2021 under Section 91 of the Code praying for preservation of CCTV footages and phone call records. It is the petitioner's claim that on a particular date of occurrence, neither the informant nor the petitioner or her sister was present at the place of occurrence. The petitioner prayed that the CCTV footages dated 12.06.2021 from the cameras installed at Hattala, Masundi and Binodia bus-stand and the phone call records between the concerned parties would bear out the truth.

3. By an order dated 18.09.2021, the learned First Court dismissed the application under Section 91 of the Code as premature and devoid of merits. The matter was pending at the stage of supply of copies.

4. The learned revisional Court affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate primarily on the ground that it was the duty of the concerned police authorities to preserve the relevant seized articles and for that no direction was required to be given.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted as follows. The call detail records (CDR) and the relevant CCTV footages would be the best evidence to show about whether the informant and the accused were present at the relevant place at the relevant time. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, it was submitted that the power under Section 91 of the Code could be exercised by a Court at any stage before a judgment is delivered. The parties concerned could then summon such records at the stage of evidence. Moreover, in Sidhartha Vashisht vs. State, AIR 2010 SC 2352, it was held that a direction was required to preserve CDR so as to ensure fairness in trial. Upon instruction, it was submitted that the relevant CCTV footages would not be available anymore as the same were not preserved earlier. However, a direction might be passed at least to preserve the call detail records. Reliance was also placed on Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin and Anr. vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nithya Bhaktananda and Anr., (2018) 2 SCC 93. In the alternative, it was prayed that the proceeding should be expedited.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relied on the case diary and submitted as follows. A prima facie case was made out against the accused as would be evident from a plain reading of the First Information Report and the charge sheet. First, an accused did not have any right to dictate the manner in which an investigation of a criminal case was to be conducted. Neither the CCTV footages in question nor the call detail records would strictly prove that the individuals in question were absent at the place of the relevant time. In any event, the necessary CCTV footages were admittedly not available.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submitted as follows. As rightly pointed out on behalf of the State, an accused could not dictate the fashion in which an investigation should be done, even in the disguise of a prayer under Section 91 of the Code. The decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioner were distinguishable on facts.

8. I heard the submissions of learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the revision petition, the case