Karnataka High Court
Dr. Vedava P vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.49 OF 2016(GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
DR.VEDAVA. P S/O LATE HUKRA AJILA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
MANGALURU UNIVERSITY,
RESIDING AT C-29
MANGALURU UNIVERSITY
RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS,
MANGALURU,
DKASHINA KANNADA -575 003. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI:S.VISHWJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTORATE OF
FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES
POLICE DEPARTMENT, MADIVALA,
BENGALURU - 560 068. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:MADHUSUDHAN R.NAIK, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG
WITH MS.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.43045/2015
DATED 15.12.2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, Chief Justice, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated December 15, 2015, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, rejecting the Writ Petition No.43045 of 2015 filed by the writ petitioner-appellant seeking a direction on the respondent No.2, the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories, to submit a report, after examining the voice and text messages received in his mobile-phone.
2. Mr. Madhusudhan R. Naik, learned Advocate General, appears for the respondents and submits, on instructions, that the respondent No.2 is not a notified examiner of electronic evidence for private individuals under the provisions of Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He, also, submits that on the request of a private individual, such examining cannot be undertaken by the respondent No.2. 3
3. Therefore, we feel that we cannot interfere with the order impugned.
4. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
5. However, this order of dismissal shall not prevent the appellant from approaching the learned trial Judge. We grant liberty to the appellant to approach the learned trial Judge, seeking for opinion of the Examiner of Electronic Evidence, in accordance with law. We, however, express no opinion on the merits.
6. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE JJ