I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length & gone through the available records. After hearing the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and the rival contention and after perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that the petitioner is seeking direction from this Court for the supply of the call details of the calls made from the mobile phone of the investigating officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that the calls made from the mobile of the investigating officer would indicate the presence, location and the activities of the investigating officer whereas the case of the State is that in the details of mobile calls of the investigating officer, it is not suggested to be the calls relating to the present case and apart from the present case, the investigating officer being a police officer, had been dealing with the other matters and activities of various other accused and with regard to the duty assigned to him. Further contention made by the prosecution is that the accused could not claim the record of various activities of the investigating officer and he has to restrict to the activity of the investigating officer in the present case only. The prosecution has claimed that accused does not have any right to have the information about the final activities of the investigating officer and that cannot be limited to the activity in the present case. So, the accused could not be said to be entitled for seeking the details of records of all the calls made or calls received from the mobile phone of the investigating officer. {Para 8}
9. The Seamed Magistrate has delivered a reasoned order for the denial of the claim of the petitioner. Similar reasoned order has also been passed by the revisional Court i.e. Court of Sessions. This Court is not of any different view than the one taken by learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as by the Court of Sessions. So the view of the Trial Court as well as the Court of Sessions is upheld by this Court also. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Crl. M.C. No. 406/2016
Decided On: 18.07.2016
Attar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Hon'ble Judges/Coram: P.S. Teji, J.
Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3907,MANU/DE/2928/2016.
1. The present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Crl.P.C.) has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 2nd August, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court. New Delhi and for the passing of appropriate directions to the Service provider of Mobile No. 9873091369 i.e. Vodafone which belongs to Mr. K.B. Jha, Investigating Officer of FIR No. 23/11. Police Station Prashant Vihar, Crime Branch, New Delhi, for preserving the call details of 2nd and 3rd February, 2011. A thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who is working as Pharmacist, Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Nirman Bhawan New Delhi since 1992, has clean antecedents. However, the officers of the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, out of grudge, lodged an FIR No. 23/11, PS Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar New Delhi against the petitioner. Challan is stated to have been filed and the case is pending trial before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution version, the Crime Branch of Delhi Police received a secret information on 2nd February, 2011 to the effect that the present petitioner while posted as Pharmacist in CGHS Dispensary, Nanakpura, New Delhi, prepared forged and fake prescriptions and that the same were used for procuring medicines with the help of other colleagues. These medicines were stated to be sold in the market at half of the actual price. On the basis of the said information, the police apprehended a Swift Dzire car near the Gole Market in which two persons were sitting. On reaching the siad car, two other persons came near the car and those two persons gave a packet each to the person sitting at the rear seat who kept the same in the dickey of the vehicle. The police caught all the four persons and various medicines were stated to have been recovered from the car.
3. Thereafter, a challan under Section 409/420/467/468/471 & 120B of Indian Penal Code, was filed against the petitioner and the other accused persons for the alleged criminal conspiracy.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this being a concocted and fabricated story in order to implicate the petitioner in a false case, an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was preferred by the petitioner seeking permission to summon the call details and location chart of the mobile phone No. 9871091369 (Vodafone) & 9818851024 (Bharti Airtel). The said application was dismissed by the learned ACMM on 22nd February, 2013 on the ground of non-maintainability as the documents sought to be produced were not part of the chargesheet and the details of personal telephone of IO/Witness of the case would amount to intrusion in the privacy of the investigating officer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further averred that being aggrieved by the said dismissal of the application, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi with the prayer that the call data record and location chart be supplied to the petitioner in order to prove his innocence. The said revision petition was partly dismissed by the learned Judge on 2nd August 2013 allowing the preservation of the call data record and location chart of Mobile No. 9818851024 of the petitioner. However the learned Judge declined to preserve the call data record and location chart of Investigating Officer on the ground of fishing inquiry and intrusion in the privacy of I.O.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mobile number provided by the applicant was the number which was used by the I.O. and that it would not amount to intrusion in the privacy of the I.O. as the applicant had only requested for providing the call data record and location chart for the said mobile number only for two days i.e. 2nd February, 2011 & 3rd February, 2011 which would reflect the time and place of his presence. Besides this, the applicant did not want to have copy of the same but to preserve the same in a sealed cover by the learned Presiding Officer so as to use the same in future in order to prove his innocence.
7. The sheet anchor for the respondent/State's version has been that there is nothing on record which would indicate that the investigating officer had submitted a false report so far as the recovery and arrest of the accused is concerned. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that preservation of call data of the Investigating Officer would amount to intrusion in his privacy. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition may be dismissed being not maintainable.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length & gone through the available records. After hearing the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and the rival contention and after perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that the petitioner is seeking direction from this Court for the supply of the call details of the calls made from the mobile phone of the investigating officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that the calls made from the mobile of the investigating officer would indicate the presence, location and the activities of the investigating officer whereas the case of the State is that in the details of mobile calls of the investigating officer, it is not suggested to be the calls relating to the present case and apart from the present case, the investigating officer being a police officer, had been dealing with the other matters and activities of various other accused and with regard to the duty assigned to him. Further contention made by the prosecution is that the accused could not claim the record of various activities of the investigating officer and he has to restrict to the activity of the investigating officer in the present case only. The prosecution has claimed that accused does not have any right to have the information about the final activities of the investigating officer and that cannot be limited to the activity in the present case. So, the accused could not be said to be entitled for seeking the details of records of all the calls made or calls received from the mobile phone of the investigating officer.
9. The Seamed Magistrate has delivered a reasoned order for the denial of the claim of the petitioner. Similar reasoned order has also been passed by the revisional Court i.e. Court of Sessions. This Court is not of any different view than the one taken by learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as by the Court of Sessions. So the view of the Trial Court as well as the Court of Sessions is upheld by this Court also. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment