Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 340
1 ®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11759 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. VIRENDRA KHANNA S/O SRI RAM KHANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.301, PIYARSON WEST LANGFORD ROAD, 1ST CROSS RICHMOND, BANGALORE – 08 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. HASHMAT PASHA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE-PH)
AND:
11. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY:
BANASAWADI POLICE, BANGALORE-560043
22. POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB POLICE, BANGALORE, NT PET BANGALORE-560002 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA AND UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYINT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E WHICH IS RE-AFFIRMED BY ORDER DATED
15.10.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED IN SPCL.C.C. NO.529/2019 ON THE FILE HON'BLE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR NDPS CAES, BANGALORE CITY, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.588/2018 ON THE FILE OF R-1 BANASWADI POLICE, BANGALORE, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.12.2020, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
1 ®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11759 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. VIRENDRA KHANNA S/O SRI RAM KHANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.301, PIYARSON WEST LANGFORD ROAD, 1ST CROSS RICHMOND, BANGALORE – 08 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. HASHMAT PASHA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE-PH)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY:
BANASAWADI POLICE, BANGALORE-560043
2. POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB POLICE, BANGALORE, NT PET BANGALORE-560002 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA AND UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYINT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E WHICH IS RE-AFFIRMED BY ORDER DATED
15.10.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED IN SPCL.C.C. NO.529/2019 ON THE FILE HON'BLE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR NDPS CAES, BANGALORE CITY, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.588/2018 ON THE FILE OF R-1 BANASWADI POLICE, BANGALORE, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.12.2020, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
Key Points from the Judgment
-
The petitioner, an accused in an NDPS case (Crime No.588/2018), challenges orders directing him to provide passwords for his smartphone and email, and to undergo a polygraph test, alleging violations of rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. (!) (!) (!)
-
The trial court issued an order on 14.09.2020 directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigating officer by providing passwords to unlock his mobile phone and email accounts, which is set aside as it amounts to an improper direction without proper procedural safeguards. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
The trial court's order dated 23.09.2020 directing the petitioner to undergo a polygraph test is set aside, as such tests cannot be compelled without the accused's informed and voluntary consent, in line with protections against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
The order dated 15.10.2020 dismissing the recall application does not survive, as the underlying orders for password disclosure and polygraph test are invalid, and the trial court should have recalled them upon being informed of applicable constitutional principles. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
Providing a password, passcode, or biometrics to unlock a device does not amount to self-incrimination or testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3), as it is akin to providing physical evidence like fingerprints or samples, not conveying personal knowledge. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
The right to privacy under Article 21 is not absolute and can be curtailed for legitimate state interests like crime investigation, provided there is legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality; directing disclosure of a password meets these if supported by law and necessary for investigation. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
Courts cannot issue suo motu directions to an accused to furnish passwords or biometrics; such directions must arise from an application by the investigating agency, as courts do not conduct investigations. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
An investigating officer can request or direct an accused to provide passwords during investigation, but if refused, the officer may seek court directions under Sections 91 or 93 Cr.P.C. for production or search warrants. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
Data from a smartphone or email does not ipso facto prove guilt; it must be proved during trial as any other evidence, subject to relevance and admissibility under the Evidence Act. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
If an accused refuses to provide passwords despite directions, the investigating officer may seek a search warrant under Section 93 Cr.P.C., or approach service providers under the IT Act for decryption, ensuring procedural safeguards. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
Safeguards for handling smartphones and electronic equipment during investigation include: involving forensic experts, photographing connections, using Faraday bags to prevent data loss, documenting the process, and avoiding unauthorized access to preserve integrity. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
-
The investigating agency must follow procedural laws under Cr.P.C. and the IT Act for accessing electronic data, ensuring no violation of privacy beyond what is necessary for investigation. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [
ORDER
1. The petitioner/Accused No. 5 is before this Court seeking for:
1.1. Issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ or order or direction of appropriate nature in quashing the order dated 23-9-2020 as per Annexure - E, which is re-affirmed by order dated 15-10-2020 as per Annexure H Passed in Spl C.C. No. 529 of 2019 on the file of the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for NDPS Cases, Bangalore City, which is arising out of Crime No.588/2018 on the file of first Respondent Banaswadi Police, Bangalore, as an abuse of process of Law.
1.2. Issuance of a writ of certiorari or writ or order or direction of appropriate nature in quashing the order dated 14-09-2020 as a part of Annexure-E in directing the Petitioner to co- operate for unlocking the mobile phone, passed in Spl. C.C. No. 529/2019 on the file of XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for NDPS cases Bangalore City, which is arising out of Crime No.588/2018 on the file of the first respondent police as illegal and abuse of process of Law.
FACTS
2. In the Petition, it is contended that:
2.1. The Petitioner is an IT Engineer, having studied in M/s RV College of Engineering, Bangalore. He was selected as Software Engineer, during the process of on-campus recruitment by Accenture, IT company, Bangalore, where he worked for one year and thereafter resigned to do his self avocation of organising events and parties in 5-star hotels and other events by obtaining licence and permission from the police department.
2.2. It is claimed that the nature of work carried out by the Petitioner is only to book the participants for the event and the other arrangements of food and drinks are made by the hotel management, and he had no control of it and even he was not allowed to carry anything.
2.3. The last event organised by the Petitioner was in the second week of March 2020 before COVID- 19 Pandemic lockdown; thereafter, he has not organised any event or party.
2.4. It is stated that on 3-09-2020, when the Petitioner was with his parents in Delhi at about 5:00 P.M, some policemen said to be from CCB police of Bangalore had visited his Delhi residence and insisted on his presence in Bangalore for interrogation by CCB police and accordingly, he was brought to Bangalore on 4-09-2020 by flight.
2.5. It is claimed that the Petitioner has been fixed in an old case in Crime No. 588/ 2018 of Banasawadi police station, in which investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed on 30-04-2019.
2.6. Petitioner was arrested and produced before the XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS cases Bangalore City, on a remand application being filed, he was remanded to police custody. On the expiry of the said remand, he was once again remanded to judicial custody without hearing him or his counsel, which is contrary to Section 167 of Cr.P.C., and violative of Articlen 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
2.7. It is alleged that when he was brought from Delhi to Bangalore by the second respondent police, he had a mobile phone bearing SIM No.8105100009 and the same was seized under mahazar on 4-09-2020. The Petitioner has claimed that he had unlocked his phone and shown it to the CCB police that it contains some contact numbers of his friends and family members. The police had seen the mobile phone details and thereafter retained the said mobile in police custody itself.
2.8. It is contended that the prosecution falsely alleged before the Special Judge on 14-09- 2020 that the Petitioner is not giving his mobile phone password for unlocking his mobile when the Court directed the Petitioner to co-operate for unlocking the mobile phone. It is further stated that the Petitioner co- operated with the police in opening his E-mail accounts.
2.9. On 16-09-2020, the Petitioner was produced before Court and got remanded to Judicial custody because his presence was no more required for the police investigation.
2.10.On 23-09-2020, the seco
