Sujit Tiwari S/O Acchabarnath Tiwari vs State Of Gujarat on 6 September, 2018

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Sujit Tiwari S/O Acchabarnath Tiwari vs State Of Gujarat on 6 September, 2018

Bench: Sonia Gokani

        R/SCR.A/1691/2018                               ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1691 of 2018

==========================================================
               SUJIT TIWARI S/O ACCHABARNATH TIWARI
                                Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYASINH J JADEJA(8854) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

                            Date : 06/09/2018

                             ORAL ORDER

1. Both the sides have been heard at length finally.

2. During the course of hearing emphasis is on the part of the learned advocate on the Whatsapp and Voice Chat messages, which are reflected in the statement given to the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau ("NCB" for short) by the present applicant at 04.08.2017. He has urged that the said Voice Chat is speaking of innocence of the applicant and, therefore, the seizure memo dated Page 1 of 3 R/SCR.A/1691/2018 ORDER 07.08.2017 and the Motorola phone forwarded to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory ("the FSL" for short) culminated into the report of the the FSL. The result of examination shows at page 213 of the petition that the chats and emails have not been retrieved. He has also pointed out from the communication dated 07.08.2017 that his mobile phone which is in the list at page 20 was not sealed at the time of seizure. This has been, of course, disputed by the learned Standing Counsel Mr. Pandya for respondent No.2 and pointed out at page 207 the report of the FSL that the Motorola phone was in a sealed envelope. In a specific query raised by the Court with regard to the Hash Value being not of the electronic gadget at the time of seizure, he has submitted on instructions that no such Hash Value was recorded.

3. On the query raised by the Court whether in case of all other electronic gadgets the Hash Value is being recorded by the investigating officers Page 2 of 3 R/SCR.A/1691/2018 ORDER or not, he needed to take instructions. Let the Regional Head of the NCB remain present on 11.09.2018.

(MS. SONIA GOKANI, J. ) SUDHIR Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court