Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Geeta Sharma, adv

Key Points

Case Citation and Court Details:
2023 Supreme (P&H) 1323; 2024 1 CriCC 260; 2023 4 LawHerald 3206. High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. Paramjit Kaur v. State of Haryana, CRR No.2605 of 2023 (O&M), decided on 04-12-2023. (!) (!)

Subject Matter:
Criminal Law - Evidence and Procedure, focusing on Section 91 Cr.P.C. for preservation of call detail records (CDRs) and tower locations in NDPS Act case under Section 21; admissibility of electronic records under Evidence Act Sections 65A, 65B; balancing police privacy with accused's fair trial rights under Article 21. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]

Facts of the Case:
Petitioner's husband (Satnam Singh @ Sattu) allegedly planted with 4.85g heroin, arrested on 03.12.2021; prior complaint against police on 12.09.2020 led to grudge. Claimed lifted from village Peerawali house at 10 AM in presence of villagers, but recovery shown elsewhere. Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for CDRs/tower locations of specific police phone numbers dismissed by trial court on 11.09.2023. [23000828480001][23000828480012]

Petitioner's Arguments:
CDRs/tower locations vital to disprove arrest time/place by prosecution witnesses; electronic records admissible under Evidence Act Sections 65A, 65B; trial court rejected mechanically without reasons; denial prejudices defense and innocence proof. [23000828480001][23000828480012]

State's Arguments:
Revealing CDRs/tower locations exposes secret informers, endangers witnesses; not for routine public access; trial court rightly rejected. [23000828480002]

Trial Court's Reasoning (Impugned Order):
Petitioner failed to mention purpose, necessity, relevancy of CDRs/tower locations. [23000828480003]

High Court's Analysis on Application:
Petitioner's application (Annexure P-1) specified necessity: husband lifted from home at 10 AM, witnesses absent from alleged recovery site; CDRs essential to contradict prosecution. [23000828480004]

Legal Framework - Section 91 Cr.P.C.:
Court/officer may summon documents/things necessary/desirable for investigation/inquiry/trial; does not override Evidence Act Sections 123, 124 or Bankers Books Evidence Act; excludes postal/telegraph items. Purpose: prevent loss/destruction of crucial evidence, ensure discovery of truth. [23000828480006] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Admissibility of Electronic Records:
Electronic records (CDRs/tower data) admissible in criminal trials under Evidence Act Sections 65A, 65B, subject to Section 65B(4) certificate; accused entitled to summon relevant records for defense, e.g., officer locations during arrest. [23000828480005][23000828480007][23000828480012]

Balancing Rights:
Accused's Article 21 fair trial right (free/fair investigation/trial, natural justice, effective hearing) prevails over police privacy; limited breach permissible for truth-discovery/justice; but accused must first prove necessity/desirability/relevancy to guilt/innocence. Section 91 aids informed judicial decisions, prevents miscarriage via evidence preservation. [23000828480007][23000828480008][23000828480009]

Necessity of Preservation:
CDRs/tower data must be preserved under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at accused's request, else lost forever; recognized right for defense documents. [23000828480005][23000828480007]

Court's Finding and Directions:
Impugned order set aside; trial court to issue directions under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for preserving/producing CDRs/tower details of specified phone numbers (Annexure A-1); no merits adjudication. Petition disposed. [23000828480010][23000828480011] (!)

Ratio/Principles:
Accused's right to summon/produce relevant electronic evidence (CDRs/tower) for defense upheld; legislative intent of Section 91 Cr.P.C. ensures no crucial material undiscovered; privacy balanced against fair trial; prove necessity first to avoid ipse dixit orders. Denial of best evidence = miscarriage of justice. [23000828480007][23000828480008][23000828480009]

Advocates:
Appellant: Mr. Amit Choudhary; Respondent: Ms. Geeta Sharma. [judgement_act_referred]