Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The law recognizes that electronic evidence, including mobile phones, call records, and chat messages, can be produced as part of the evidence, provided proper legal procedures are followed and the evidence is relevant and necessary ["Amar Kumar @ Aman Kumar Son of Kusheshwar Paswan VS State Of Bihar - Patna"] ["XXXX VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"] ["Mahant Digamber Tejgiri alias Mauni Baba alias Tarsaim Singh VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Balla Mallikarujuna Swamy vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]- ["Amar Kumar @ Aman Kumar Son of Kusheshwar Paswan VS State Of Bihar - Patna"]- ["XXXX VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"]- ["KRISHNAN KARTHA vs K. DINAKARAN - Kerala"]- ["Sourabh Jain vs The Central Narcoties Bureau - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Mahesh Agarwalla - Delhi"]- ["Amit Kumar son of Ram Kumar VS UT of Jammu and Kashmir Thr. SHO Police Station ANTF - Crimes"]- ["VISHAL M.P. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]- ["Patchaimuthu vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"]- ["Mahant Digamber Tejgiri alias Mauni Baba alias Tarsaim Singh VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]
In criminal proceedings, physical evidence often plays a pivotal role. But can a material object like a mobile phone be produced before a court alongside a criminal complaint, just like filing documents? This question arises frequently in cases involving electronic devices, where data such as call logs, messages, or photos could be crucial. Generally, yes—provided it aligns with procedural laws—but there are specific provisions and safeguards to consider.
This blog post dives into the legal framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), key judicial interpretations, and real-world examples. We'll explore Section 91 CrPC, constitutional protections, and practical tips, drawing from authoritative sources. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
The cornerstone is Section 91 of the CrPC, which empowers courts and police officers to issue summons for producing documents or other things if deemed necessary or desirable for investigation, inquiry, or trial. UNION OF INDIA VS CDR. RAVINDRA V. DESAI - 2018 4 Supreme 678
Courts have clarified: Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. explicitly empowers courts and police officers to summon and produce documents or objects when it is necessary or desirable for investigation or trial purposes. UNION OF INDIA VS CDR. RAVINDRA V. DESAI - 2018 4 Supreme 678
At the complaint filing stage or during investigation, producing a mobile phone is typically permissible if relevant. Sarla Gupta VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 787
Production isn't limited to trials; it can occur with the initial complaint. The law allows it if the object is in the possession of the complainant, accused, or agency, and bears on the case. Sarla Gupta VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 787
For instance, in robbery cases, stolen phones have been produced directly: Bhuwan Yadav@Bhanu and co-accused Rajan were taken to the police station wherein the petitioner produced a Redmi Mobile Phone, which matched the description of the robbed phone. Bhuwan Yadav @ Bhanu VS State GNCT of Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 2034
Courts assess if the phone contains evidence like messages or location data. The power under Section 91 is flexible for items like mobile phones, computers, or other material objects relevant to the case. UNION OF INDIA VS CDR. RAVINDRA V. DESAI - 2018 4 Supreme 678
A common concern is self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. However, lawful production orders don't violate this: The production of a physical object like a mobile phone does not contravene constitutional protections under Article 20(3), which prevents self-incrimination, provided that the production is ordered lawfully and with due process. Sarla Gupta VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 787
It's a procedural step, not testimonial compulsion, when done with safeguards.
Indian courts routinely handle mobile phones as material objects. Here are integrated insights from key judgments:
Robbery Involving Mobile Snatching: In a case where a phone was snatched, leading to injury, the accused produced the matching device at the station, aiding identification and arrest. This underscores production during early investigation stages. Bhuwan Yadav @ Bhanu VS State GNCT of Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 2034
Electronic Evidence Admissibility: Screenshots and WhatsApp messages from phones were allowed under Section 311 CrPC as secondary evidence, with Section 65B Evidence Act certification: Electronic documents stricto sensu are admitted as material evidence... call transcripts obtained from the. Kanaparthi Veera Brahmam vs State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 69190Zeenie Gill Sandhu VS Ashok Kumar Goyal @ Rajja - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 598
Seizure and Court Production: Police informed an accused that his mobile phone and cash would be produced before the Court, highlighting routine practice. Murukesan S/o Sarathi VS State Represented by Inspector of Police - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 736
Identity Verification Challenges: Courts stress documenting unique identifiers like IMEI: The defence objected to the identity of the mobile phone so produced... Nokia Lumia mobile phone was produced before the Court during trial and had been exhibited as a material exhibit. Proper handling prevents disputes. OM PRAKASH VERMA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2017 Supreme(Cal) 786
Other Contexts: Phones recovered from cupboards or used for recordings have been produced, but admissibility hinges on chain of custody and relevance. Deviben Ahir VS State of Gujarat - 2017 Supreme(Guj) 528Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa VS CBI - 2018 Supreme(Del) 1902
These cases affirm: Material objects like phones can be filed with complaints if relevant, but secondary evidence (e.g., copies) requires compliance: When a material object cannot be produced before the court, there is no provision to produce secondary evidence. Sherin V. John, S/O. Joy V. John VS State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2018 Supreme(Ker) 390
Not every request succeeds. Key restrictions include:
If considering production:
Courts exercise discretion judiciously: The necessity and desirability of producing a material object depend on the stage of proceedings and the context. Sarla Gupta VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 787
Generally, a mobile phone can be produced before a court with a criminal complaint under Section 91 CrPC, akin to documents, if necessary for justice. Backed by precedents like phone seizures in robberies and electronic evidence admissions, this practice strengthens cases—provided relevance, procedure, and safeguards are met. UNION OF INDIA VS CDR. RAVINDRA V. DESAI - 2018 4 Supreme 678Sarla Gupta VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 787
Key Takeaways:- Leverage Section 91 for summons/production.- Respect Article 20(3) via lawful orders.- Prioritize documentation for admissibility.
Stay informed on evolving digital evidence rules. For tailored guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
References:- Sarla Gupta VS Directorate of Enforcement - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 787: Authorizes production of material objects with complaints. UNION OF INDIA VS CDR. RAVINDRA V. DESAI - 2018 4 Supreme 678: Details Section 91 discretion.- Additional cases: Bhuwan Yadav @ Bhanu VS State GNCT of Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 2034, Zeenie Gill Sandhu VS Ashok Kumar Goyal @ Rajja - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 598, OM PRAKASH VERMA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2017 Supreme(Cal) 786, etc.
#CrPCSection91, #CriminalEvidence, #LegalIndia
Consequently, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 348 of the BNSS seeking to recall the evidence of PW3 and to receive the said mobile phone and mark it as a material object. However, the trial Court dismissed the said petition. 7. ... However, the trial Court failed to consider the same, assigning reasons that nothing was mentioned about the phone during the trial and that the subsequent production of the material object#HL_END....
The mobile phone said to have been recovered from the appellant's possession, was not produced at the trial as material exhibit. 22. ... In paragraph 62 of his evidence, the Investigating Officer deposed at the trial that though at the time of production of the appellant before the Court after his arrest, the mobile phone recovered from the appellant's possession was produced but he had not made any entry regarding production of the mobile#....
However, that court could then file a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during investigation provided the procedure laid down in Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is followed. ... It is no doubt true that quite often — if not almost invariably — the documents are forged for being used or produced in evidence in court before the proceedings are started. ... a private complaint even though the offence....
The allegation in the complaint is that the respondent published defamatory allegations against him through the medium of WhatsApp through an account generated by a particular SIM inserted in the mobile phone of the respondent. The said mobile phone has been seized and produced before the court. ... The case was taken on file based on a private complaint filed by the petitioner. ... The Public Prosecutor submitted that the practice ....
Consequently, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 348 of the BNSS seeking to recall the evidence of PW3 and to receive the said mobile phone and mark it as a material object. However, the trial Court dismissed the said petition. 7. ... However, the trial Court failed to consider the same, assigning reasons that nothing was mentioned about the phone during the trial and that the subsequent production of the material object#HL_END....
Kamal@Kunal had snatched her mobile phone, and she had fallen on the road. They had taken the phone, which had certain documents of the victim inside the cover of the phone. ... Bhuwan Yadav@Bhanu and co-accused Rajan were taken to the police station wherein the petitioner produced a Redmi Mobile Phone, which matched the description of the robbed phone. Both the petitioner and co-accused Rajan, were arrested by the police. ... Poona....
After marriage, due to the harassment of her in laws for additional dowry she lodged a complaint in Cr.No.204 of 2021 on the file of Saroornagar woman police station. After that her husband went to USA, since then, her in laws were only attending the court. ... Electronic documents stricto sensu are admitted as material evidence. With the amendment to the Evidence Act in 2000, Sections 65-A and 65-B were introduced into Chapter V relating to documentary evidence. ... call transcripts obtained from the #....
The respondent filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to prove and produce screen shots of the messages sent by the husband of the petitioner from his mobile phone No. 98787-16418 to the complainant, when the criminal complaint was fixed for cross-examination of the respondent and his attorney ... the instant application has been filed are already given in the list of documents attached with the complaint. ... It has been further submitted that the said documents#H....
At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. ... P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, th....
Kumar appeared before the trial court and affirmed that he was present at the time of incident and thereafter the application under section 91 of Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner requesting for calling of the mobile call records as well as location of the mobile phone and also the test report of samples ... of aforesaid criminal case. ... Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is 'n....
It is his version that after the arrest, the police took him to the hotel where he had worked and made him to receive Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand only) as arrears of salary from the hotel and it was also seized by the police. But he does not have any information about those valuable articles. He also denied the evidence of PW29 and Ext.P28 report. They informed him that his mobile phone and cash would be produced before the Court.
Further, the mobile phone which was used to record the conversation was not seized nor the owner of the mobile phone produced as a witness. Further, the conviction of Anand Vishwa @ Bishwa for offence punishable under Section 5 of the ITP Act is also not made out as no role has been attributed to the appellant for procuring/inducing or taking the victim for prostitution and therefore, he be acquitted of the charge of Section 5 of the ITP Act also. The conversation between the two accused in the immediate presence of the police officers is hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evi....
But the second proviso to Section 60 of the Evidence Act enables the party concerned to adduce oral evidence in respect of the object. A copy of a material object can be only its replica. When a material object cannot be produced before the court, there is no provision to produce secondary evidence.
The defence objected to the identity of the mobile phone so produced. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for examining the said witness had not been disposed of on merits but was kept on record. It has also been argued that the Nokia Lumia mobile phone was produced before the Court during trial and had been exhibited as a material exhibit. Hence, prayer to prove the purchase receipt of such phone was in aid of the prosecution case and not an exercise to fill up the lacuna in the said case. It was their specific defence that the Nokia Lumia ph....
In the cross-examination, he agreed that in his police statement, he had not referred to the dead-body carrying electric shock marks. He had also not referred to the details of the illicit relations between the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. He had produced before the police, a mobile phone from the cupboard of Deviben. This witness also referred to the illicit relations of the wife of the deceased with the accused No. 2 as a cause of his death.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
