Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 1312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Krishan Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 120 of 2024
Decided On : 18-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For Respondent: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP, Mr. Rajendra Choudhary
IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the right of an accused to access essential evidence for a fair trial, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders by law enforcement.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 91 and 397 - Revision petitions challenging the rejection of applications for Call Data Records and Tower Locations - The court emphasized the right of an accused to a fair trial and the necessity of obtaining evidence for proper defense - The trial court's rejection of the applications was found to be untenable. (Paras 1, 9)
(B) Contempt of Court - Disobedience of court orders by police officials - The court initiated contempt proceedings against the concerned police officer for failing to comply with previous orders, highlighting the importance of adherence to judicial directives. (Paras 3, 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of drug possession and sought evidence to support his defense, which was denied by the trial court, prompting the revision petitions.
Findings of Court:
The revision petitions were partly allowed, and the trial court's orders were quashed, allowing for the procurement of relevant Call Data Records.
Issues: The main issues included the right to a fair trial and the necessity of evidence for the accused's defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a fair trial necessitates access to evidence, and the trial court's reasoning for rejecting the applications was inadequate.
Result: Revision petitions partly allowed.
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
No one is above the law and certainly no one can be, how mighty or influential he may be. A public servant cannot be permitted to flout the direction passed by this court or to make a deliberate disobedience of the order. The facts and circumstance of the case are that an order was passed by this court way back on 12.07.2023, which was not honoured by the police officials as well as the subsequent order regarding furnishing of explanation has also been defied.
2. Vide order dated 12.07.2023, this court passed the following order in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.613/2023 :-
1. The instant criminal revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders dated 29.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Hanumangarh in Session Case No.113/2022 and 148/2022, whereby the applications moved by the petitioner under Section 91 of CrPC praying for procuring Tower Locations and Call Data Record of 17 persons, viz. the police party, who made seizure of the contraband, the accused himself, accused in FIR No.81/2022 registered at Police Station Pilibanga and taxi drivers, for the date 26.02.2022 from 07.00 am. to 12.00 midnight were rejected.
2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 26.02.2022 when Mr. Indra Kumar, SHO, Police Station Pilibanga alongwith other police personnel was patrolling, at 06.00 p.m. at Chak Rohi 13 P.B.N., they caught accused-petitioner Krishan Lal, who was allegedly having possession of 3 kg opium. He was arrested and FIR No.82/2022 came to be registered at 01.11 am.
3. On the same day, i.e. 26.02.2022, Mr. Harbans Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Pilibanga, who was patrolling with other police personnel, conducted Nakabandi at Goluwala Tiraha, Pilibanga to Hanumangarh Road. At 08.30 p.m., they intercepted an Alto car bearing Registration No.RJ-31-CB-3802. Accused Anil Kumar and Subhash were in the car, from which 50 gm. opium was recovered. It was revealed during investigation of that case that the contraband was procured to them by the accused-petitioner Krishan Lal, thus, he too was made an accused in the case and FIR No.81/2022 came to be registered at the Police Station Pilibanga at 12.34 a.m.
4. The claim of petitioner Krishan Lal is that since he had already been detained by police party at 06.00 p.m. at Chak Rohi 13 P.B.N. in FIR No.82/2022, therefore, he could not have supplied the contraband to accused Anil and Subhash in FIR No.81/2022, who were detained at 08.30 p.m. at Goluwala Tiraha, which is a place at a distance of 2.77 k.m. from Chak Rohi 13 P.B.N. He further claims that on 26.02.2022 he was at Police Station Goluwala from 10.30 a.m. till evening and in fact, he was taken from Police Station Goluwala to Police Pilibanga and the seizure proceedings shown from him at Chak Rohi 13 P.B.N. were fabricated. In order to substantiate the above claims, the accused petitioner preferred two applications under Section 91 CrPC before the trial court for summoning the CDR and Tower Locations of 17 people including the police party and accused in FIR No.81/2022, which came to be rejected by the trial court vide the impugned order. Hence, these revision petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and that he was roped in both the matters based on false allegations. It is submitted that the Call Data Record and Tower Locations of persons mentioned in the applications under Section 91 of the CrPC are essential to bring the truth to the surface. Every accused has a right to lead proper defence and have a fair trial. Such an important right of an accused cannot be curtailed by passiveness of the agency or the trial court. The information sought to be summoned has a time bound existence and the petitioner would seize to have chance to lead proper defence
