Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J
Narendra Kumar Soni S/o Navrang Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4342/2024
Decided On : 07-01-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 91 - Electronic records admissibility - The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application to summon mobile tower locations of witnesses in an anti-corruption case, asserting the absence of trap proceedings. The court directed the preservation of mobile locations for two witnesses while partially allowing the petition. (Paras 1, 4, 16)
(B) Right to fair trial - The court emphasized that the right to privacy of police officials must be balanced against the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 13, 15)
Key Points: - The court directs preserving mobile locations of two witnesses (Sonu Meena, Jitender Meena) and partially allows the petition (!) (!) . - It acknowledges electronic records are admissible under Sections 65A/65B and requires a certificate under 65B(4) for admissibility (!) . - It cites Suresh Kumar v. Union of India (2014) to permit summoning call details/tower locations with privacy protections like blacking out calling numbers (!) (!) . - The petitioner’s application under 91 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed; preservation ordered for complainant and Investigating Officer, but not for two witnesses in earlier order (!) (!) . - The Court emphasizes balancing Article 21 rights with police privacy, allowing necessary preservation to ensure fair trial while protecting privacy to an extent (!) (!) . - The final directive: summon tower locations for specific mobile numbers for a specified time window, with numbers blacked out in the supplied details (!) . - The judgment references Kapil v. State of Rajasthan and Suresh Kumar for precedent on 91 Cr.P.C. usage and privacy considerations (!) (!) . - The court’s conclusion: petition disposed of with directions to preserve and summon certain tower locations; no order on costs (!) (!) . - The case discusses trap proceedings and the alleged non-presence of witnesses, justifying the need for location data to verify facts (!) (!) . - The order ultimately directs specific tower location preservation for two witnesses with a defined time frame, and blacking out numbers in the material furnished by telecom companies (!) .
Order :
1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota whereby she had partly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the tower locations of the witnesses of the trap proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely booked in an anti-corruption case. Counsel submits that in fact no trap proceedings were conducted on 10.03.2023 and presence of the two witnesses, namely, Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena has been incorrectly mentioned/ incorporated in the trap proceedings. Counsel submits that these witnesses were not present and at the time of alleged proceedings even then, their presence has been shown at the place of alleged occurrence. Counsel submits that as per the footage of the CCTV camera, only three persons, namely, the petitioner, brother of the complainant and one unknown person were present while neither the trap party nor these two above witnesses were present. Counsel submits that in order to verify the aforesaid fact, an application was submitted under Section 91 Cr.P.C. with the prayer for preserving the location of the mobile numbers of these witnesses including the mobile number of the complainant and Investigation Officer along-with other members of the trap party.
3. Counsel submits that the said application submitted by the petitioner was partly allowed by the Court below and mobile locations of the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer were ordered to be preserved, but the prayer with regard to preserving mobile locations of the above two witnesses, namely, Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena and other members of the trap party has been declined. Counsel submits that the Court below has committed an error in not accepting the prayer made by the petitioner with regard to preservation of the mobile locations of these two witnesses, namely, Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena.
4. Counsel submits that in the light of the following judgments passed by this Court and the Apex Court in the cases of Kapil Vs. State of Rajasthan Thro' P.P. reported in 2021 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 844 & Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1833, the direction be issued to the concerned mobile company to preserve the location of the mobile phones of Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the Trial Court has already partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and the call details, mobile locations of the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer were ordered to be kept preserved. Counsel submits that the Trial Court has not committed an error in not accepting the prayer of the petitioner with regard to preserving the mobile locations of the above two witnesses along-with other witnesses of the trap party, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.
7. As per contents of the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C., no trap proceedings were conducted by the trap party in the short time on 10.03.2023, i.e., from 1:40PM till 3:18PM. It has been alleged in the said application that fabricated documents and evidence has been prepared by the Investigating Agency at the behest of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in the instant case, that is why, a prayer was made to preserve the location of the mobile phones of the complainant, Investigating Officer, witnesses, namely, Sonu Meena and Jitender Meena and other members of the trap party in order to ascertain the truth with regard to the correctness of the trap proceedings conducted by the Investigating Agency.
8. The application filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed and the directi
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 established that electronic records, including mobile tower locations, are admissible as evidence and essential for a fair trial.
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
The preservation of electronic records is essential for the defense in narcotic-related cases, affirming their admissibility under Indian Evidence Act provisions.
The right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails over privacy concerns, necessitating the production of evidence under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for justice.
Court directs telecom providers to preserve mobile tower locations beyond standard period for verifying arrest location in NDPS defence.
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....
Preserving electronic evidence is essential for ensuring a fair trial, allowing the accused to challenge the prosecution's case effectively.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that accused persons are entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC after the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial Court has the jurisdiction to direc....
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
