The obligation of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the necessity of fair legal procedures in summoning evidence.

Order

14/08/2025

1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’) in Criminal Session Case No.71/2024, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the CCTV footage along with the call details and tower location of mobile phones of police officials, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order. It is further submitted that a false case has been foisted upon the petitioner.

Learned counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon the judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Chota Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan : SBCRLMP No.3472/2023 (Natural Citation 2024:RJ-

JD:14887), the relevant part of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

“7. In the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has emphasized that the procedure established by law must always be fair, just and reasonable and it cannot be arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable.

8. The basics of criminal jurisprudence is that always the onus lied upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt. Although in some of the statute a reverse burden theory has also been adopted but this is not the case here. When the prosecution brings a case to try and punish an accused for certain culpable act, then it is imperative upon the prosecution; rather, it is an obligation to prove the charges by producing cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence, which may be in the form of oral or documentary evidence. When it is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were apprehended from the particular place at a particular time, then it would be incumbent upon them to establish the fact beyond reasonable doubt.”

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the criminal misc. petition.

4. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed.

5. It is ordered that the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the trial court in Criminal Session Case No.71/2024 is quashed and set aside and the application moved by the petitioners before the trial court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

6. The learned trial court is directed to pass necessary directions to the respondent-State, police officers as well as the service provider company of the respective mobile numbers for providing requisite call details and tower locations of the mobile phones of police officers, names of which are mentioned in the application. The police officer of the concerned Police Station shall also be directed to procure the above evidence at the earliest so as to prevent them from destroying, vanishing and deleting. After receiving the above evidence, the trial court is directed to keep it on record of the case along with certification under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and the same could be utilized by both the parties during the examination of the witnesses. The accused shall be permitted to ask questions from the concerned police officers by confronting them with the electronic record produced. The above task is permitted only with a view to ascertain or shake the credibility of the witnesses and to enable the parties to bring the truth on record and which would not mean leading the defence evidence rather it would be a cross check o