Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
Krishan Pawdia – Appellant
Versus
State, NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition details and investigation overview. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court's dismissal of petitioner's application. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding false implication and evidence preservation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. application of co-accused and its dismissal. (Para 6) |
| 5. need for confidentiality in specialized investigations. (Para 7) |
| 6. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.) for giving directions to the investigating agency/I.O./SHO for supplying contact numbers of the members of the raiding party and the location chart of the mobile of the members of the raiding party in FIR no. 0489/2021, P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar and also giving directions to the investigating agency/I.O./SHO to conduct fair investigation. The petitioner made the following prayers:
In view of the above-mentioned facts, circumstances and submissions, it Is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to pass an order/s directing the IO/SHO/investigation agency with the direction/s:
A)- To
The preservation of evidence by the raiding party is unnecessary due to operational security concerns once an investigation is complete.
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
The court affirmed the necessity of preserving electronic records to ensure a fair trial, balancing privacy rights against the accused's right to access evidence.
The court ruled that telecom operators must maintain call records for two years, allowing the accused to access evidence through the court under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
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 duty of the court to collect evidence for the defense and the necessity of summoning call details for establishing innocence and ensuring fair trial.
The court established that under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the accused has the right to summon evidence essential for their defense, reinforcing the principle of a fair trial.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
