Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Sagar Mal S/o Nathulal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for challenging the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.226/2024 (Sessions Case No.189/2024), whereby the application filed by them under Section 91 of the CrPC has been rejected.
2. Succinctly, stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing a criminal trial for the offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. During the course of trial, he preferred an application under Section 91 of the CrPC seeking an order to summon production of video footage of all the CCTV cameras installed at the Police Station Bijaypur, District Chittorgarh of the dates 12.06.2024 and 13.06.2024. It is submitted that the aforesaid CCTV footage would be tendered into evidence for impeaching the credit of prosecution witnesses as well as to place contradiction in between the oral testimony and documents. It was averred in the application that the aforesaid documents are essential for the just decision of the case. It is contended that if the aforesaid data got deleted, the petitioner would be deprived
The court emphasized the necessity of preserving electronic evidence for a fair trial, affirming the fundamental right to defend oneself and the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonab....
The court emphasized the necessity of preserving electronic evidence for a fair trial, affirming that denying such evidence undermines the right to defend oneself.
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.
Preserving vital evidence is essential for justice, allowing the accused to summon evidence crucial for their defense even before trial.
Preserving electronic evidence is essential for ensuring a fair trial, allowing the accused to challenge the prosecution's case effectively.
The court affirmed the necessity of preserving electronic evidence to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriage of justice.
The court emphasized the necessity of preserving electronic evidence for ensuring a fair trial, ruling that denying access to such evidence hinders the pursuit of truth.
The court clarifies that electronic evidence can be admitted during trial, emphasizing the necessity for ensuring genuineness without assuming it requires reverting to an investigative process.
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....
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.
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
