IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Dinesh Kumar @ Dina - Appellant
Versus
State, NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2334 of 2021
Decided On : 29-11-2021
CDRs - Criminal Procedure - Section 91 Cr.P.C - 42 NDPS Act - 50 NDPS Act - 20/25 NDPS Act - [Section 91 Cr.P.C, 42 NDPS Act, 50 NDPS Act, 20/25 NDPS Act] - The court discussed the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C for summoning the call detail records (CDRs) and location chart and timeline of the raiding party. The court highlighted the compliance with the requirements of Section 50 NDPS Act, the preservation of CDRs of the raiding party, and the refusal to expose the CDRs of officers of Special Task Force to ensure their safety.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order dismissing the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C for summoning the call detail records (CDRs) and location chart and timeline of the raiding party. The petitioner contended that the CDRs of the officers ought to be preserved as the manner of arrest shown in the FIR was not correct.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the relief sought by the petitioner had already been considered earlier and, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. The court also emphasized the need to ensure the safety of the officers and their informers by not exposing the CDRs of officers of Special Task Force unless necessary for the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the preservation and exposure of call detail records (CDRs) and location chart of the raiding party, and the correctness of the manner of arrest as shown in the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the narrow scope of the revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C, the need to preserve the safety of the officers and their informers, and the lack of material to show that the petitioner was picked up from a different place by a different raiding party.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed along with the pending application(s), if any.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner challenges the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the Special Judge - 02 (NDPS), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 91 Cr.P.C for summoning the call detail records (CDRs) and location chart and timeline of SI Mukesh Tyagi, Constable Ashish Kumar, SI Priyanka, Head Constable Rohit Solanki and Constable/Head Constable Ravinder.
2. As per the prosecution, on 02.12.2020, secret information was received by ASI Danvir Singh at about 09:30 PM in the office of Special Task Force (STF), Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi, that two persons will be coming in a white coloured Scorpio car at about 11:00 PM to supply Ganja to someone under Geeta Colony Flyover, Bypass, Ring Road, Delhi. The material on record discloses that the informer was produced before Inspector Sunil Kumar who verified the facts of the secret information and on being satisfied, Inspector Sunil Kumar and ASI Danvir Singh produced the secret informer before the ACP/STF, Pankaj Singh. ASI Danvir Singh was directed to form a raiding team and take necessary action. DD entry, being DD No. 11 was lodged at 10:00 PM and the copy of the same was forwarded to Inspector Sunil Kumar for proceeding further in accordance with Section 42 NDPS Act. A raiding team was formed consisting of Head Constable Virender Kumar, Constable Paramjeet, Constable Parvinder and Constable Shashi Kant and they departed along with the secret informer. Material on record discloses that the petitioner and one Sachin Kumar were apprehended near Geeta Colony Flyover, Bypass Ring Road, Delhi, when they were going in a white coloured Scorpio car bearing No. UP 17-J-5200. The requirements of Section 50 NDPS Act were complied with and 84.350 Kg Ganja was recovered. Accordingly, a case vide FIR No. 186/2020 dated 03.12.2020 Under Section 20/25 NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Crime Branch, New Delhi and investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector Mukesh Tyagi, STF/Crime Branch.
3. During the course of Investigation in the present case, accused persons were interrogated and statement of witnesses were recorded. The petitioner herein was arrested at about 06:30 AM on 03.12.2020. Three mobile phones including one Micromax having two SIM Cards (Airtel & Vodafone belonging to UP West circle), One Samsung Duos (Golden Colour) having two BSNL SIM cards belonging to Orissa Circle and One Samsung Duos (Blue Colour) having two BSNL SIM cards belonging to Orissa Circle were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Material on record discloses that the SIM cards were registered in different names. Material on record also discloses that two SIM cards registered in U.P were taken without permission and the other four SIM cards of BSNL belonging to Orissa circle were found to be issued on fake IDs. Material on record also discloses that heavy amount was transferred from the account of the petitioner to the account of the person who had supplied the recovered contraband.
4. The petitioner moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:
"(A) The I.O. of P.S, Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Sun Light Colony Delhi, FTP No, 0186/2020 Dated 03/12/2020 to furnish before this Hon'ble Court the Call Detail Record and Phone Locations i.e. mobile Number 9996745661, 9759844057 and 7088572531 from 11:00AM dated 02/12/2020 to 5:00PM dated 03/12/2020 and preserve the same the call details of the above said mobile Number 9996745661, 9759844057 and 7088572531 which belongs to applicants to bring the truth before this Hon'ble court.
(B) To Direct the concerned I.O. of P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Sun Light Colony, Delhi to furnish before this Hon'ble court the list of arresting team members name along with their designations and Mobile numbers and also locations & Mobile Phone Call Details Record dated 02/12/2020 and preserve the same the call details & locations.
(C) To direct the I.O, C
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
The discretion to allow the filing of additional evidence, such as the CDR, under Section 311 Cr.P.C should be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection t....
The court established that electronic records, including mobile tower locations, are admissible as evidence and essential for a fair trial.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with Section 45A and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in evaluating electronic evidence and the inadmissibilit....
The preservation of evidence by the raiding party is unnecessary due to operational security concerns once an investigation is complete.
The accused does not have the right to invoke Sec. 91 of the CrPC for document production at the stage of framing charges; such rights are reserved for the defense stage of the trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of electronic records in criminal trials and the relevance of obtaining mobile tower location records to establish the location o....
The order passed on application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was interlocutory in nature. The accused persons had not been summoned to appear before the Court concerned. The investigation in the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.