Delhi High Court - Orders
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Saurav Sharma on 18 November, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2774/2021
CRL.M.A. 17566/2021 (stay)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP for CBI
with Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Mr. Prakash
Airan, Advs.
versus
SAURAV SHARMA ..... Respondent
Represented by:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 18.11.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing
1. Grievance of the petitioner/CBI to the impugned order dated 6 th August, 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge is that the learned Special Judge in a routine manner directed preservation of the records sought by the accused in RC DAI-2020-A-0024 under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 7(A), 8, 9 of the PC Act under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
2. It is stated that in the application filed by the accused no reason whatsoever was given seeking directions to preserve the mobile phone records of the members of the raiding team and the public witnesses and without any reasoning the learned Trial Court directed that the mobile phone records of the phone numbers of the persons mentioned in Para 3 (a), (c) &
(e) of the application be preserved.
Signature Not VerifiedCRL.M.C. 2774/2021 Page 1 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:18.11.2021 21:52:13
3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Trial Court at this stage has not gone into the issue whether these records would be required for the just decision of the case and rightly so for the reason the accused have also not led their defence which would disclose the relevance of these phone call records. However, the direction issued is for preservation of record for the reason mobile phone companies are mandated to keep the records for a period of one year and since after one year the record will not be available even if so directed by the Court it would be a fait accompli and a valuable evidence if relevant to the case and necessary for the just decision would be lost.
4. Though prima facie issuing directions for preservation of the record may not be to the prejudice of the petitioner/CBI, however the grievance of the petitioner is that in case orders in routine manners are passed to preserve the records of the raiding team and the public witnesses, they would be demoralised and particularly the public witnesses would stop joining the recovery proceedings etc. Learned counsel for the CBI further states that to avoid any problem in future and since no stay was granted by this Court, the investigating agency has already written to the mobile phone companies to preserve the records. However, the issue needs consideration and laying down of the guidelines as to the circumstances under which such an order could be passed by the Courts.
5. Issue notice to the respondent on the petitioner taking steps through e- mail/SMS/Whatsapp/speed post/ courier returnable before this Court on 14 th February, 2022.
6. It is clarified that in case the investigating officer has not requested the mobile phone companies to preserve the records as directed by the Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 2774/2021 Page 2 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:18.11.2021 21:52:13 learned Trial Court, necessary letter be written by the investigating officer to the mobile companies so that the order passed by the learned Special Judge does not become infructous.
7. List on 14th January, 2022.
8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
NOVEMBER 18, 2021 'ga' Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 2774/2021 Page 3 ofSigned Digitally 3 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:18.11.2021 21:52:13