Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Karamjit Singh, J.
Peter Chand - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-M-12522 of 2023
Decided On : 12-04-2023
CDR - Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Evidence Act Section 65A, Section 65B
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dismissing the application to produce call details record (CDR) and digital records of mobile phones for establishing innocence in a drug possession case.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court's order was set aside, and direction was given to preserve the CDRs for the accused and police officials. Admissibility and relevance of the electronic records will be subject to the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Issues: Quashing of order dismissing CDR application, admissibility of electronic records, preservation of CDRs
Ratio Decidendi: The accused can summon CDRs to establish innocence, preservation of CDRs for scrutiny, relevance of electronic records subject to Evidence Act provisions
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. Direction was given to preserve the CDRs for the accused and police officials with admissibility subject to Evidence Act provisions.
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashing of order dated 31.01.2023, Annexure P-2, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for issuing directions to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa and concerned telecom to produce the call details record (CDR), Google Map history/timeline, facebook location history details of mobile phone numbers of the person mentioned in the application along with private lap top of SI Dalip Singh, has been dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa.
2. The State counsel having advance notice of the present petition has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are that two persons riding on a motorcycle were apprehended by the police on 19.11.2021. The said motorcycle was driven by the petitioner while co-accused Kuldeep Singh was sitting on its pillion seat and commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the polythene bag which was found lying tied with said motorcycle. The petitioner and co-accused Kuldeep Singh were arrested at the spot and after completion of investigation challan was presented and charges are framed and now case is fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. During the pendency of trial application has been moved by the petitioner seeking directions to Supdt. Of Police, Sirsa and concerned telecommunication company to produce the CDRs, google map history/timeline, facebook location history details of mobile phones of the following persons:-
2. ASI Balwant Rai 1250 No.94667-27477
3. EHC Rai Saheb 739 to be disclosed by him
4. Suraj Prakash Jain SDE No.98125-13457
Public Health Mandi Dabwali.
5. EASI Shailender No.227 to be disclosed by him Driver Govt. Vehicle No.HR-22Z-2525
6. Peter Chand accused No.72067-07049
7. Kuldeep accused No.83062-16825
5. The aforesaid application was contested by the State and dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 31.1.2023, Annexure P-2.
6. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petition.
7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and in order to establish his innocence, the petitioner intends to produce the concerned CDRs and other digital record maintained by the concerned telecommunication company. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that for that purpose, direction is immediately required to be given to telecommunication company to preserve the concerned record, so that the accused be able to summon the same at the appropriate stage during the trial. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suresh Kumar Vs Union of India 2015 (3) RCR Criminal 340 has held that an accused can be allowed to summon CDRs of the mobile phones of concerned police officers and the accused to show that the accused/police officials were not present near the location of alleged recovery at the relevant time. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the law laid down in Suresh Kumar’s case (supra). So prayer is made that the present petition be allowed.
8. The petition is resisted by the State counsel who submits that the trial Court rightly declined the prayer made by the petitioner. It is further submitted that reliable and cogent evidence is available on record to establish the guilt of petitioner and other accused person who were found to be possessing commercial quantity of contraband while riding on a motorcycle.
9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
10. Admittedly the trial has commenced and case is fixed for prosecution evidence and the petitioner intends to confront the investigating officer and other recovery witnesses with the concerned CDRs and other digital record maintained by the concerned telecommunication company in order to establish
Accused can summon CDRs to establish innocence, preservation of CDRs for scrutiny, admissibility of electronic records subject to Evidence Act provisions
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
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 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 ruled that telecom operators must maintain call records for two years, allowing the accused to access evidence through the court under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
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 ....
Preserving electronic evidence is essential for ensuring a fair trial, allowing the accused to challenge the prosecution's case effectively.
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
