SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Sunil Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Table of Content
1. quashing of order under cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2)
2. vodafone's compliance regarding cdrs (Para 3)
3. direction to provide cdrs (Para 4 , 5)
4. disposition of petition (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to quash the order dated 22.10.2016 passed by Special Judge NDPS-02, (central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR No.82/15, P.S Crime Branch, in case titled as State vs. Sunil Sharma, whereby an application bearing no. M.A. No. 36/2016 Under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was disposed off.

2. The petitioner moved an application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the service provider M/s Vodafone India Limited to provide CDRs of mobile number 9811104884 of the petitioner and 9711946898 of son of the petitioner and mobile number 9560838726 of employee of the petitioner.

3. Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Crl.), on instructions, stated that as per the reply received from Vodafone, it is stated that the CDR is available only for a period of one year in their CDR portal. He further submits that if the CDR of the aforesaid mobile numbers are available with Vodafone, they

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top