Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-22371-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Call Detail Record - NDPS Act - Sections 22, 61, 85 - The court discussed the petitioner's request for call detail record/mobile tower location record, the preservation of such records, and the right of the accused to access these documents at different stages of the legal proceedings. The court referred to the NDPS Act and the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing the accused's right to build up their defense from the early stages of the trial. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the legal provisions and the precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Kalmadi Vs. CBI 2015(8) RCR 378.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought issuance of directions to mobile companies to provide call detail record/mobile tower location record, which had already been directed to be preserved. The trial Court declined the application, stating that the record may be proved during the course of defense evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the accused has the right to access the call detail record and tower location record to build up their defense from the early stages of the trial, as established in the precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Kalmadi Vs. CBI 2015(8) RCR 378.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be furnished with the call detail record and tower location record at the stage of consideration on framing of charges or at the stage of recording defense evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the accused's right to access documents for building up their defense and the relevance of such documents at different stages of the trial, as established in the precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was entitled to the call detail record and tower location record once the charges are framed. The trial Court was directed to issue necessary directions for calling for the records and to furnish a copy to the accused. The documents would be admissible in evidence only after being duly proved during the course of defense evidence in accordance with provisions of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral) - The petitioner assails order dated 6.4.2022 passed by Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana (Annexure P-4), whereby an application moved by the petitioner/accused seeking issuance of directions to Nodal Officers of Jio/Reliance and Airtel, to provide call detail record/mobile tower location record, which had already been directed to be preserved, has been dismissed.
2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is facing trail before the Court of Special Judge (NDPS), Ludhiana, in respect of FIR No.155, dated 30.11.2020, Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana, under Sections 22, 61, 85 of NDPS Act. The petitioner had earlier moved an application before the trial Court seeking issuance of a direction to the Nodal Officers of the mobile companies concerned, to provide the phone numbers of the police officials and also the call detail record in respect of their phone numbers. The said application was allowed vide order dated 6.5.2021(Annexure P-3) passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana. The operative portion of the said order read as follows:
'.. The Nodal officers of concerned network are directed to produce the same in the court as and when directed by the court. So application for preserving call details along with tower location is partly allowed and same is ordered to be attached with the main file.'
3. When the matter was fixed at the stage of framing of charges, an application was moved by the petitioner seeking issuance of a direction to Nodal Officers of the mobile companies concerned to provide the phone call detail record along with the tower location record in respect of the phone numbers regarding which directions had been issued on 6.5.2021 (Annexure P-3) so as to preserve the call detail record and tower location record.
4. The said application was declined by the trial Court while observing therein that the said record may be proved during the course of defence evidence by summoning the witnesses concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the call detail record had been ordered to be preserved, the petitioner/accused ought to have been furnished with copy of the same as he has to build up his defence on the basis of said call detail record and that he would be seriously prejudiced in case he is not permitted to build up his defence and infact he may also be permitted to make submissions in this regard at the stage of framing of charges.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the petition has submitted that such like documents cannot be furnished to the petitioner at the stage of consideration on framing of charges since the same do not form part of the charge-sheet and are not 'relied upon' documents and had never been taken into possession by the police during the course of investigation. It has further been submitted that it is only at the stage of defence evidence that the petitioner may be permitted to have access to the said documents so as to use the same for his defence.
7. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.
8. As far as the contention of learned State counsel to the effect that the petitioner is not to be furnished with the aforesaid documents at the stage of consideration regarding framing of charges is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, at the stage of framing of charges certainly does not have a right to have access to these documents which are not part of challan and are in the nature of documents to help him put forth his defence. The question as regards framing of charges has to be considered mainly on the basis of the documents collected by the police during the course of investigation. Since, the call detail record is not part of the challan, therefore, the petitioner, at this stage has no right to call for these documents.
9. As far as the contention of learned State counsel to the effect that the said document i.
The accused has the right to access call detail record and tower location record to build up their defense from the early stages of the trial, as established in the precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi....
The accused has the right to access relevant documents to build up their defense from the beginning of the trial.
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....
The court established that electronic records, including mobile tower locations, are admissible as evidence and essential for a fair trial.
The admissibility of electronic records in criminal trials and the need to balance the right to summon relevant electronic records with the right to privacy of others.
The accused's right to summon relevant evidence for their defense, including electronic records, is recognized, and the legislative intent behind Section 91 Cr.P.C. is to ensure discovery of crucial ....
Court directs telecom providers to preserve mobile tower locations beyond standard period for verifying arrest location in NDPS defence.
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
The court affirmed the necessity of preserving electronic evidence to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriage of 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
