IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 2790 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 999/2021 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

SUDHEEER KRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS V K RAM COMPOUND B M MAIN ROAD ROBERTSON PETTA OPPOSITE KARNATAKA BANK KARNATAKA, PIN - 563113 BY ADVS. C.S.MANU DILU JOSEPH C.A.ANUPAMAN T.B.SIVAPRASAD C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR MANJU E.R.

ANANDHU SATHEESH ALINT JOSEPH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED ADDL.R2 AREA MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI, PIN 682 016.

ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 5.4.2023 IN CRL.

M.A. 2 OF 2023.

BY ADVS.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MANU S., DSG OF INDIA SR.PP.RENJITH GEORGE; CGC V.GIREESH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

11.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2023 Petitioner is the first accused in S.C. No. 999 of 2021 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Ernakulam. During the course of defence evidence, the petitioner filed an application seeking production of the CCTV footage from the camera installed in the Aluva Railway Station. On being issued with notice in the petition, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Southern Railway submitted Annexure A6 affidavit stating that as per technician's report, CCTV is having capacity of 30 days backup storage and it is not easy to restore the old footage. Along with the affidavit, a copy of letter regarding the storage backup of VSS system of Aluva Railway Station was also submitted. Based on the affidavit and documents produced, the Sessions Court refused to direct production of CCTV footage and closed the defence evidence. Aggrieved, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, even going by Annexure A6, the officer has only stated about the difficulty in restoring the CCTV footage. As such, if the court had insisted on restoration and production of the footage, the same would have been done.

3. Heard learned CGC also.

4. At first blush the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be meritorious. But, a careful scrutiny of Annexure A6 affidavit shows that the officer had intended to state that, after 30 days the CCTV footages cannot be restored. The purpose behind the production of the letter issued by the authorised officer, along with Annexure A6, is nothing else. As such, the trial court cannot be found to be at fault for having accepted the affidavit and proceeded with the evidence, without insisting on production of the CCTV footage.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE sb APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2790/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, ALUWA BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE NO.1, ERNAKULAM Annexure A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29-4-2021 SUBMITTED TO THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT THROUGH THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT Annexure A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26-7-2022 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT THROUGH THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT Annexure A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WITNESS LIST FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN SC NO.999 OF 2021 BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Annexure A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE POST COMMANDANT, SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER, TELECOMMUNICATION, CHALAKUDY, SOUTHERN RAILWAY IN SC NO.999 OF 2021 BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Annexure A-6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27-3-2023 FILED BY THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, ALWAYE IN SC NO.999 OF 2021 BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE