Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 574 (MP)

Himmat Singh v. CBN through Ashish Chakrawarti

2015-05-12

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2015
ORDER 1. By this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner Himmat Singh has challenged the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mandsaur District, Mandsaur in S.T.No. 22/2014 dismissing the application filed under sections 91, 92 of the CrPC read with section 65(b) of the Evidence Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case in nutshell are that Himmat Singh was being prosecuted for evidence under sections 8/18, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act. He was in custody. He moved the application under sections 91 and 92 of the CrPC read with section 65(b) of the Evidence Act. Counsel submitted that since the call details of the officers who were raiding party were to be preserved, the application was, however, dismissed by the trial Court and hence the present petition. Counsel submitted that call details were of utmost importance to the defence of the accused since they had abducted the present applicant snatched his mobile and dropped him at the barrier of the M.P. border and had taken his vehicle also. They had taken him to the State of Rajasthan initially and all the details were available on the mobile telephone numbers which are supplied as : 8930172604 which belongs to Vodaphone India Limited 8602506941 which belongs to Tata Dokomo Company. 3. Counsel submitted that under identical circumstances in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9274/2012 Kripal Singh v. M.P. State through P.S. Kendriya Narcotic Bureau, this Court had directed appropriate directions. Counsel prayed that this application be allowed. 4. Counsel for the respondent/CBN Zonal Area, Indore through Officer Aashish Chakrawarti has opposed the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner stating that the petition is without merit. Primarily in this case there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court and the application can be considered at the time of final hearing. Moreover it is also an admitted fact that the record of the cell phones are maintained only for one year by the telephone department and are destroyed thereafter and in this case the date of incident is of 13.3.2014. The telephone numbers also belong to different telephone companies and Counsel prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. Moreover it is also an admitted fact that the record of the cell phones are maintained only for one year by the telephone department and are destroyed thereafter and in this case the date of incident is of 13.3.2014. The telephone numbers also belong to different telephone companies and Counsel prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. On considering the above submissions I find that identical petition has been decided in the matter of Kripal Singh (supra), thus : “Hence exercising the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the CrPC, it is directed that BSNL Telephone Company or any other company in whose name the aforesaid cell phones are recorded shall preserve record till the officers concerned of the Narcotics Department are examined in this regard. However, it is made clear that the company shall not disclose the details of the record or transcription available before it. The petitioner shall give an undertaking in writing before the trial Court to the effect that he shall not tamper with the said evidence and shall not try influence or approach the officer concerned in this regard” 6. In view of the above the aforesaid directions shall apply Mutatis Mutandis to this petition also. 7. It is directed that the counsel for the petition shall serve a copy of this order to the respondent CBN Zonal Area, Indore. 8. With the aforesaid observations the petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 9. No costs. .................