The court emphasized the necessity of preserving electronic evidence for a fair trial, affirming that denying such evidence undermines the right to defend oneself.

Order :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.92/2025 (Sessions Case No.11/2025), 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 petitioners are facing a criminal trial for the offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. During the course of trial, they 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 Bigod, District Bhilwara from 09.00 p.m. of 04.02.2025 till 05.00 a.m. of 05.02.2025 and at the Police Station Kotadi, District Bhilwara from 02.00 a.m. of 05.02.2025 till 11.00 a.m. of that day. 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 petitioners would be deprived of getting justice. The said application has been rejected, hence the instant miscellaneous petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material as made available to this Court.

4. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to the controversy involved, in the case of Chotha Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SBCRLMP No.3672/2023 decided on 04.03.2023. The relevant paragraphs are being reproduced hereunder:-

3. A plea has been raised at the behest of petitioners to the effect that a false case has been foisted upon them. The arrest memos and the seizure memos were not prepared at the time mentioned on it and this fact can be verified from the production of the documents, which are in the form of electronic evidence. It was contended that the police officers, whose names are mentioned in the seizure memo, were not present at the time and place as they have been portrayed in papers and as such the memos are farce since at the relevant point of time, neither the petitioners nor the police officers, whose names are mentioned in the application, were present at the crime place. In fact all the papers were prepared by the police at Police Station at a time different to what has been mentioned.

4. It is pleaded that the above fact can be verified from the production of call data record and tower locations of the mobile phones, which were with the police officers. A prayer was made for summoning the call details and tower locations of the mobile phones of police officers, names of which are given in the application, of the dates of 16.05.2022 and 17.05.2022, so as to elicit the truth. The said application has been rejected by the trial court vide the order under assail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the niceties of the matter.

6. Defending oneself is not only a statutory but a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived for his/her life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

7. In the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has emphasized that the procedure established by law must always be fair, just and reasonable and it cannot be arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable.

8. The basics of criminal jurisprudence is that always the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt. Although in some of the statute a reverse burden theory has also been adopted but this is not the case he