ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC') seeking quashment of order dated 18.11.2019 passed by learned 02nd Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No.632/2016 by which the learned Judged has allowed the application filed by the prosecution to send the seized mobile phone for data recovery to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell was that accused persons had conspired to kill Jai Singh, a lawyer practicing at Mhow, District-Indore. The plan was to be carried out while Jai Singh would proceed in his Verna car and modus operandi would be to strike his car with Dumper driven by one of the co-accused persons. Such conspiracy was hatched by co-accused-Mangilal who was inside the jail and who was the chief conspirator at whose behest such conspiracy was hatched. He had given telephonic instructions through mobile phone from inside the jail. On 29.3.2016, accused-Ramsingh drove the dumper and struck the Verna car carrying Jai Singh Thakur. While Jai Singh escaped with injuries, two motorcycles were struck by the Dumper and one occupant of each of these motorcycles succumbed to their injuries. Initially offence under sections 304A, 337, 279 IPC was registered but after investigation offence under sections 302, 307, 120B IPC were added.

3. During investigation, a CD allegedly containing the conversations between witness Hirasingh and Umabai was seized. As per prosecution story, the conversation threw light on the conspiracy which was hatched. This CD was prepared by witness-Banesingh. The mobile from which the CD was burnt was seized from Hirasingh. However, this mobile phone when tried to be used at the time of examination of Hirasingh, the same did not get activated despite charging the same. Therefore, the prosecution filed an application to send the mobile to FSL in order to retrieve the recording. Vide impugned order, the Presiding Officer has sent the mobile to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) so that recording contained therein can be retrieved.

4. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that Hirasingh has refused to identify the mobile phone as his own, that Umabai in her Court deposition has denied to have been spoken to Hirasingh, that it was not the part of duty of learned trial Court to send the mobile phone to regional Forensic Science Laboratory, that once Hirasingh had made statements disowning the mobile belonging to him, the recording if any, in the aforesaid mobile phone has ceased to be of any relevance. Hence the order has been sought to be set aside.

5. During submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that seizure memo also does not show that the mobile phone carries any recording and Investigating Officer (IO) himself never heard any recording of the mobile phone and thus, there is no evidence that the aforesaid mobile phone contained any recording.

6. Learned public prosecutor for the State has submitted that witness-Banesingh who provided the CD to the Investigating Officer (IO) contained conversations which would throw light on the conspiracy hatched which is extremely relevant and that the conversation was recorded from the seized mobile only and it is extremely important to retrieve the recording from the mobile phone which would have primary evidence and, therefore, for just decision of the case, it was appropriate on the part of the Presiding Officer of trial Court to send the mobile phone to the FSL.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The documents were perused.

9. No attempt was made by the Investigating Officer (IO) to see as to whether the CD provided by the witness Banesingh was in fact made from the mobile phone seized from Hirasingh.

10. It can be seen that after investigation was over, trial ensued and such an application was filed. What is aimed to obtain is collection of evidence at the trial stage. The only question i