Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 1164 - HC - Indian LawsApplication seeking production of Call Detail Records for the phone number "9811806773" of Mr. Jyoti Chhabra being a representative of a company by the name of ATOS Origin - petitioner had prayed in the application for the production of Call Detail Records for the purpose of cross-examining PW-18 Mr. Sujit Panigrahi - It is the case of the petitioner that he was also in a commercial relationship with Microsistemas Lagasca S. A. de Madrid (hereinafter referred to as "MSL"), which had in fact bid for the TSR RFP. It is the case of the prosecution that the contract for Timing Scoring and Results systems for the Commonwealth Games 2010 ought not to have been awarded to Swiss Timing/Omega, but to a Spanish company by the name of MSL Software. Held that:- The petitioner is facing trial for an offence which may entail him punishment. He is seeking production of those documents and things which according to prosecution records even appear to be inexistence and which he feels shall help him in defending himself. According to him that these documents are connected with the case in hand. Therefore, it cannot be argued straightway that he is trying for making of any roving or fishing inquiry or is making a request which may be unreasonable. It is settled law that in a criminal trial the prosecution has to be absolutely fair and impartial. The main purposes of a criminal trial is not to get some one convicted. The object is to discover the truth and punish the accused if found guilty. The documents which he himself cannot procure for the purposes of putting his defence have to be requisitioned by invoking Section 91 Cr.P.C., if the Court is satisfied that those are necessary or desirable for the purpose of trial. The defence has to be built up from day one of the trial. The right to defend, which flows from the fundamental right to "life" and "personal liberty" enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not an illusionary right, but a substantive one. The tool given in the hands of the court to discover the truth of the controversy before it. The power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to discover the truth and to do complete justice to the accused. Naturally, the discretion vested in the Court must be applied judiciously, while keeping in mind the constitutional mandate, and the purpose of Section 91 Cr.P.C. In the present case, Trial Court has observed that the petitioner does not require the Call Detail Records of Mr. Jyoti Chhabra for the cross examination of PW -18 Sujit Panigrahi on the ground that the records are "hardly of relevance" when the mobile call record of PW-18 is already on record. The Trial Court apparently did not make relevancy of the onward communications of Mr. Jyoti Chhabra with officers of MSL - Trial Court did not consider the request of the petitioner that the Call Detail Records of PW -18 Sujit Panigrahi cannot establish the nexus between representatives of MSL, Jyoti Chhabra and PW-18 Sujit Panigrahi. Call Detail Records of PW-18 Sujit Panigrahi only demonstrate communication between PW-18 Sujit Panigrahi and Mr. Jyoti Chhabra which cannot disclose the onward communication between Mr. Jyoti Chhabra and representatives of MSL. The application filed by the petitioner before the trial court is allowed by quashing the impugned order for summoning the Call Detail Records for "9811806773"of Mr. Jyoti Chhabra of ATOS Origin - petition disposed off.
|