1. Mother seeks directions regarding criminal proceedings against son under NDPS Act, alleging false implication and failure to preserve crucial CCTV evidence. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 610
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Savitri Devi D/o Late Bacchana Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 923 of 2023
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajendra Singh Rathore
For the Respondent: Shri Ram Choudhary
For the Appellant : Rajendra Singh Rathore
For the Respondent: Shri Ram Choudhary
Failure by the investigating agency to produce best available evidence (specifically CCTV footage) despite judicial directions entitles the accused to an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, implying the evidence would have been unfavorable to the prosecution.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 15, 21 and 25 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 61, 62, 64, 65 and 114(g) - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 119 - Rule of Best Evidence - In cases involving stringent statutes with severe mandatory punishments, the prosecution carries a heavy burden of proof and must strictly comply with procedural safeguards (Para 8) - The Rule of Best Evidence mandates that the most direct and reliable evidence available must be produced to prevent fraud, mistake, or distortion of facts; secondary evidence is permissible only in exceptional circumstances (Paras 9, 10, 11) - Electronic evidence, specifically CCTV recordings, captures events in real time and provides an objective depiction that may possess higher evidentiary value than oral testimony (Paras 18, 20, 21) - Failure to secure and preserve decisive electronic evidence despite judicial directions may give rise to legitimate doubts regarding the fairness of the investigation (Para 22).
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114, Illustration (g) - Adverse Inference - The Court may presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it (Paras 30, 31) - This presumption is particularly compelling when the evidence is not merely incidental but goes to the root of the controversy (Para 32) - A prompt request for footage, explicit judicial directions for production, and subsequent failure or delay by the prosecution provide sufficient basis for invoking this presumption (Paras 33, 34).
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed by the mother of an accused charged under the NDPS Act. The accused was allegedly intercepted at a toll plaza where contraband was recovered. The petitioner sought the production of CCTV footage of the plaza via an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Despite directions from the trial court, the prosecution failed to produce the footage, eventually stating it had been deleted. The prosecution further resisted the accused's request to recover the data through forensic experts.
Findings of Court:
The non-production and apparent destruction of the CCTV footage constitutes suppression of the best available evidence and attracts the adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 119 BSA, 2023). Such failure has seriously compromised the fairness of the investigation and casts a substantial shadow upon the prosecution case.
Issues: Whether the failure of the investigating agency to preserve and produce material electronic evidence, which was within its control and requested timely, warrants a mandatory adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Rule of Best Evidence, the most reliable evidence must be produced before the Court. When an investigating agency allows decisive electronic evidence to disappear despite judicial orders, the court is justified under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act in presuming that such evidence would have been unfavorable to the party withholding it. This is especially critical in NDPS prosecutions where the liberty of an individual is at stake and the statute prescribes severe penalties.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions that the trial court shall draw the necessary adverse inference that the electronic evidence which was admittedly within the control of the prosecution and could have been produced, but was withheld or allowed to be deleted, would, if produced have been unfavourable to the prosecution.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges deliberate failure to preserve CCTV footage; prosecution contends recovery was made at toll plaza with surveillance. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. CCTV footage at toll plaza was best evidence; its non-production despite court orders attracts adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
4. Non-production of best available evidence, especially electronic surveillance footage, permits adverse inference against party withholding it. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
5. Petition disposed of; trial court directed to draw adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act for non-production of CCTV footage. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
6. What is the rule of best evidence and how does it apply to electronic records?
The rule mandates that when the best available evidence is accessible, it must be produced. Electronic records like CCTV footage may constitute best evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. What is the presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act regarding non-production of evidence?
The court may presume that evidence which could be produced but is not produced would be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
8. What is the consequence of prosecution's failure to preserve crucial electronic evidence in an NDPS case?
Such failure strikes at the root of fair investigation under Article 21 and undermines the prosecution's credibility, attracting adverse inference. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
9. What evidentiary value does CCTV footage have compared to oral testimony?
CCTV footage, when authentic and properly preserved, can be more reliable than oral testimony as it objectively captures events as they occurred. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
ORDER :
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner who is mother of the accused, seeks a series of directions under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to address various grievances regarding the criminal proceedings initiated against her son under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The petition raises serious concerns about the false implication of the petitioner’s son and the failure of the respondents to preserve crucial evidence, including the CCTV footage from Hindore Toll Plaza, which the petitioner claims is pivotal to his defense.
2. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs through the instant writ petition:
a. By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents may kindly be directed to procure CCTV footage of the Hindor Toll Plaza dated 20.12.2022 from 8:45 am to 1:00 p.m.
b. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the present petitioner's son may kindly be discharged from the NDPS charges leveled against him.
c. By an appropriate writ, order or direction criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioner may kindly be drooped.
d. By an appropriate writ, order or direction present petitioner's son may be released from the judicial custody.
e. By an appropriate writ, order or direction FIR no. 323/2022 Police Station Rajiyasar, District Ganganagar (Rajasthan) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Brief Facts
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the mother of the accused, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grievance of the petitioner arises out of the criminal proceedings initiated vide FIR No. 323/2022 registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar for offences under Sections 8, 15, 21 and 25 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner contends that her son has been falsely implicated and that the investigation conducted by the police authorities suffers from serious procedural infirmities. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the alleged interception of the vehicles and the subsequent search and recovery are stated to have taken place at Hindore Toll Plaza on the Bikaner–Suratgarh National Highway on 20.12.2022 between approximately 11:10 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., a place which is admittedly equipped with CCTV surveillance systems.
4. According to the prosecution, the complainant–police officer while patrolling noticed a Swift car and a Bolero Pick-up moving at high speed, chased them on suspicion, and ultimately stopped the vehicles at Hindore Toll Plaza where search was conducted in the presence of alleged independent witnesses. It is alleged that from the Swift car bearing registration No. RJ19CK7868 four plastic bags containing poppy husk weighing 76 Kg in total were recovered. However, the petitioner asserts that no recovery was made from the Bolero vehicle and that the alleged recovery from the Swift car is fabricated. It is further alleged that the incident began with a minor altercation between the police personnel and the accused after the side mirror of the Swift car was damaged during the chase, which subsequently led to false implication of the petitioner’s son. The petitioner emphasizes that her son is 38 years old and has no criminal antecedents.
5. The central grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to the deliberate failure of the investigating agency to secure and preserve the CCTV footage of Hindore Toll Plaza for the relevant period. The petitioner had moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh on 04.01.2023 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of CCTV footage for the period between 8:45 A.M. and 1:00 P.M. on 20.12.2022, which could have conclusively demonstrated the sequence of events. The learned trial court directed the prosecution to produce the said footage; however, despite repeated opportunities and judicial directions, the footage was not produced and ultimately the T
