Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Tarunjit Tejpal vs State Of Goa on 12 October, 2015
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman
1
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRLMP. 15012/2015 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s). 66/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/12/2014
in SC No. 10/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa,
Goa)
TARUNJIT TEJPAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA Respondent(s)
(for clarification of court's order dated 16.01.2015 and office
report for direction)
Date : 12/10/2015 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Adv.
Mr. P.K. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Karanjawala, Adv.
Ms. Vir Singh Sandhu, Adv.
Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Suri, Adv.
Mr. C.U. Chopra, Adv.
M/s. Karanjawala & Co.
For Respondent(s) Mr. L.N. Rao,Sr. Adv.
Mr. V. Madhukar, Adv.
Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv.
Mr. F.Tavora, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Mohit D. Ram,Adv.
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2015.10.13
11:04:30 IST
Reason:
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Criminal M.P. 15012/2015 2 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 66/2015 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2015 directing the prosecution to provide all relevant documents including unedited CCTV footage etc. The present application has been filed by the Prosecution, inter alia, stating that all the documents have been supplied to the petitioner except two documents which are mentioned at Para 5(f) and 5(h). Insofar as the document mentioned at para 5(f) is concerned, it is pointed out that the same was never attached by the Investigating Officer and it is not filed in the court nor it is relied upon document. In view of the above, there is no occasion to supply this document. Insofar as the document mentioned at para 5(h) is concerned, it is pointed out that the Mobile Phone and the data contained therein was to be supplied. However, the laboratory at Hyderabad has expressed its inability to clone the same. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court can send it to another laboratory for this purpose and supply the same to the petitioner. Let an attempt be made in this behalf as early as possible.
Criminal M.P. 15012/2015 is, accordingly, disposed of and in that view office report for directions is ordered accordingly.
(Ashwani Thakur) (Renu Diwan)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER