1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CR.R. No. 586 of 2022

•

Lavkush Sharma, aged 20 years, son of Shri Rajendra Sharma,

R/o. Mahamaya Gate, (behind Indrawatika Bhawan), PS

Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh

---- Applicant

Versus

•

The State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, PS

Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG)

----Non-applicant

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For applicant

: Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Adv.

For respondent

: Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice

N.K. Chandravanshi

Order on Board

21-6-2022

1.

This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant

against order dated 30-3-2022 passed by the learned Special

Judge (Atrocities) Sarguja Ambikapur in Special Sessions Case

No. 16/2021 (State of CG -v- Lavkush Sharma and another) by

which the application filed by the applicant under Section 451 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for handing

over the mobile in question on supurdnama has been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that Special

Sessions case No. 16/2021 is pending before the Special Judge

(Atrocities), Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja for the offence punishable

under Section 306/34, 201/34, 509 of the IPC and Section 67, 67A

and 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3/4/6 of

the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986,

which is in the stage of examination of prosecution evidence. He

further submits that one Android mobile phone of Realme

company bearing IMEI No. 862672047999332 with two Sim cards

2

has been seized from the applicant, which has been examined

also by the Cyber Forensic Lab, Police Headquarter, Raipur and

report in this regard has also been filed with the charge sheet.

The applicant used to deal all his business activities through the

mobile in question, and he is in very much need of the same,

which is lying idle in the custody of police. It is submitted that he

is the owner of the mobile and if the mobile is not given to him in

temporary custody, then being an electronic device, it would

become worthless, but learned trial Court without considering

aforesaid facts has dismissed the application for supurdnama of

mobile, holding that it could be required at the time of evidence,

which is not as per law and is clearly against the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai -v- State

of Gujrat, [2002 (10) SCC 283].

3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that

disputed contents have been found in the mobile seized from the

possession of the applicant. Although he has been mentioned as

owner of the mobile in the impugned order, but material witnesses

have not been examined and the mobile in question is an

important piece of evidence. Hence, the order impugned passed

by the Court below is appropriate.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record and the impugned order.

5.

Perusal of the impugned order would show that the alleged

mobile has been seized from the possession of the applicant and

necessary investigation like testing from Cyber Forensic Lab,

3

Police Headquarter, Raipur has been done and report has also

been filed with the charge sheet. If the disputed content of mobile

is still remaining in it, such content could be downloaded in the CD

or other device and panchnama may be prepared, which can be

used at the time of evidence, photograph of alleged disputed

content can also be taken, but only for the reason that the

disputed contents are there in the mobile, denial of interim

custody of said mobile to the applicant does not seem to be

appropriate.

6.

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra),

has laid down the