An accused cannot dictate how an investigation should be conducted, nor compel the collection of evidence that intrudes on the privacy of others.

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the learned Special Judge, Special Court of Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli, dated 30.09.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No. 190/2024.

2.The petitioner is an accused, in Cr.No.14 of 2023 registered by the respondent complainant, on the allegation that he demanded bribe from the defacto complainant and it is a trap case. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition before the Special Court seeking to store all the information pertaining to two mobile numbers 9790145475 and 9944633626 between 14.08.2023 to 16.08.2023 in order to enable him to file a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C ., at a future point of time to call for those details. The above petition has been dismissed.

3.Aggrieved over that, this criminal original petition has been filed.

4.The petitioner / accused, was the Deputy Superintendent of Police and after having caught in a trap case, he has filed a miscellaneous petition before the Special Court alleging that his defence would lie in the particulars of CDR and tower location pertaining to mobile numbers belonging to the defacto complainant and his associate, one Mr. Ashok and hence, a direction is required to store the CDRs during the relevant period. In order to justify his prayer, he had cited the decisions held by the Delhi High Court.

5.Having not satisfied with the justification given by the petitioner and by observing that the direction sought by the petitioner if given, it would have an impact on the privacy of two individuals, the special Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

6.Some other grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition is that the data pertaining to the above mobile numbers are essential to establish the truth of the matter and to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him and that was not properly appreciated by the trial Court.

7.It is further submitted that the final report of the case has not yet been filed and at that stage the Court ought to have considered the necessity to collect the relevant information pertaining to the case, but that was ignored.

8.It is further submitted that subsequent to the dismissal of the petitioner's application, the final report has been filed and the CDR and tower location records have been deliberately omitted to be collected

9.The manner in which the petitioner wanted the Investigating Agency to act while investigating a case registered against him, on the face of it appears to be dictating the Investigating Agency by the accused as to how an investigation of a case registered against him should be conducted.

10.Knowing pretty well that it is not just a case based on a mere complaint of an individual, subsequent to the trap, the Petitioner has filed this petition seeking to store the information relating to two mobile numbers of the defacto complainant and Ashok, for the period from 14.08.2023 to 16.09.2023.

11.The cases cited by the petitioner have also been dealt by the trial Court by observing that they are relevant to the facts of its own case. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the orders of the Delhi High Court, which may not act as a precedent, but have a persuading effect, if similar facts are involved.

12.In the case on hand, after having made a thorough analysis, the trial Court has observed how the circumstances involved in the above cases are different from the one which is involved in this case.

13.Certain facts have been admitted even by the prosecution in the response given to the petition filed by the petit