Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Poonam vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:6322) on 3 February, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:6322] (1 of 3) [CRLMP-702/2017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 702/2017
Poonam Laalwani W/o Ashok Laalwani D/o Pokar Das, R/o House
No.2B Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Lakshman Das S/o Hasanand Israni, R/o House No.15/178,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CL Mali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 03/02/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor. None present for the respondent despite services. This petition is pending before this Court since year 2017 which made a challenge to the order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Court of Revision and the order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Court of first instance.
2. The petitioner happened to be an accused in a criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act. During the cross- examination of the complainant, the petitioner made a request that he has some material in his mobile phone and therefore, he wanted to show the material before Court to the witness and request was made to allow him to cross-examine the witness with regard to the material available in the phone. The petitioner is (Downloaded on 05/02/2025 at 09:37:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:6322] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-702/2017] ready to produce the original phone in the trial, though the copies of transcript has been submitted on record. It is the thrust of the accused that whatever stated by the witness in his examination- in-chief can be controverted in cross-examination by confronting the witness with the conversation available in the memory of the phone. He is ready to furnish the certificate to the effect that the recording in the mobile phone is intact, not morphed or tempered with. If an accused wants to controvert the statement of witness by confronting him through his previous conversation recorded in the mobile phone, then for the purpose of shaking credibility, checking veracity and to elicit the truth, in my opinion an opportunity must be awarded to the other party. It would be well within the prerogative and statutory right of the complainant to raise plea with regard to the admissibility of the document and other legal pleas available to him as per the statutory provision, however, in no state of imagination, an accused cannot be constrained or circumscribed by not permitting him to question the witness with a view to disprove statement by a witness made in the examination in chief.
3. Accordingly, the misc. petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to deposit the mobile phone in original with the trial court alongwith a true transcript, duly attested by him. A certificate required under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act shall also be furnished saying that material stored in the phone is intact and not tempered with or morphed or photoshoped. Learned trial court shall allow him to play the conversation during the course of statement of the witness and suitable cross- examination shall be allowed to be made from the witness. It is (Downloaded on 05/02/2025 at 09:37:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:6322] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-702/2017] made clear that questions which are not relevant to the controversy and the fact in issue shall not be permitted to be asked. He would be able to ask questions from the witness regarding the facts narrated in FIR and his statements so also to controvert the same.
4. Stay petition is also disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J 2-chhavi/-
(Downloaded on 05/02/2025 at 09:37:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)