Back
FARJAND ALI
Banwari Lal Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Farjand Ali, J.
The instant Criminal Revision Petition is barred by 44 days and is supported by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. For the reasons stated and grounds mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed and the delay of 44 days in filing the instant revision is condoned.
3. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr. P.C. challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar in Session Case No. 89/2021 whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 91 of CrPC praying for procuring Call Data Record/Call Details for the period of six months prior to August, 2021 pertaining to the two mobile numbers allegedly being used by the prosecutrix was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and that he was roped in the matter based on false allegations. He was in a consensual relationship with the prosecutrix of the case and they used to c
The court emphasized the fundamental right to defend oneself and the necessity of preserving evidence for a fair trial, allowing the summoning of call data records and related documents.
The preservation and exposure of call detail records (CDRs) and location chart of the raiding party should be carefully considered to ensure the safety of the officers and their informers, and the de....
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
The court emphasized the right to present evidence in defense, allowing an extension for the petitioner to lead digital evidence despite challenges regarding its preservation.
The court affirmed the necessity of preserving electronic evidence to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriage of justice.
The right to privacy prohibits unwarranted intrusions into personal data, and the requirement for Call Data Records under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is irrelevant to defamation charges.
Preservation of evidence must be relevant to ongoing issues in the case; requests that constitute a roving inquiry and invade privacy rights are not warranted.
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
