Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paramlal @ Param vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 September, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 22nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4153 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. PARAMLAL @ PARAM, S/O SHRI KHUBBILAL
RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE WORK, RESIDENT OF: OM SHANTI
P.W.D. COLONY THANA SHAHPURA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. TIKARAM URF TIKKU S/O KHUBBILAL RAJAK,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE WORK, RESIDENT OF: OM SHANTI
P.W.D. COLONY THANA SHAHPURA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DILIP S/O MULAYAM RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 24
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: PRIVATE WORK,
RESIDENT OF: OM SHANTI P.W.D. COLONY
THANA SHAHPURA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANKIT CHOPRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
SHAHPURA JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANDEEP DUBEY - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 10.01.2020, passed in Special S.T.No.202/2017 (State of M.P. Vs. Khubbilal and Others), whereby Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 9/28/2022 10:54:21 AM 2 application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C filed on 26.12.2019 to summon the location and call details of Mobile Phone Nos.9926303908, 9926792360, 7694865244 and 8889488138 and to summon the doctors on duty in the ambulance which had brought deceased Dilip Rajak and injured Ramu has been declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the incident deceased had sustained only one injury whereas six accused persons have been implicated in the offence and they all are facing session trial for the commission of aforesaid offence. It is apparent that 5 persons have been falsely implicated. It is submitted that at the time of commission of offence petitioner Paramlal, Tikaram and Dilip Rajak were not present on the spot and to prove their innocence, it is necessary to summon their mobile call details to prove that at the time of incident they were not present at the place of incident and were present somewhere else. It is submitted that the order of not summoning the MLC report of the deceased from PHC Shahpura is against the well established principles of law. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned ASJ is not only bad in law but also deprives the petitioners/accused from justice. Therefore, it has been prayed that mobile call details of the aforesaid phone numbers of the petitioners be summoned from the service provider company and doctor who was present in the ambulance which had brought the deceased from the place of incident to the hospital be also summoned for evidence to prove the name of persons who had caused injury to the deceased and injured eye witnesses.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that incident took place long back on 06.12.2016. Till this day, more than 5 years Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 9/28/2022 10:54:21 AM 3 and 9 months have elapsed from the date of incident, call details are preserved by the service providers only for a period of two years. Therefore, now any attempt to call for such call details and location of the aforementioned mobile phone numbers would be nothing but a futile exercise to delay the disposal of the case. It is further submitted by learned Pane Lawyer that there is no need to summon the doctor who was present in the ambulance as he had neither examined deceased or injured, nor he has given any MLC report or other report. Therefore, an attempt on the part of the petitioner to summon such doctor is nothing, but an attempt to delay the disposal of the session trial pending for more than last 5 years.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. On a perusal of the License Agreement For Unified License for VNO executed between Department of Telecommunication and Service Providers, it is apparent that in Part - I, Chapter VI of the terms and conditions the UL agreement has been under:
"39.20. The Licensee shall maintain all commercial records/ Call Detail Record (CDR)/ Exchange Detail Record (EDR)/ IP Detail Record (IPDR) with regard to the communications exchanged on the network.
Such records shall be archived for at least two years for scrutiny by the Licensor for security reasons and may be destroyed thereafter unless directed otherwise by the Licensor. Licensor may issue directions /instructions from time to time with respect to commercial records/CDR/IPDR/EDR"
On a perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that service provider/licencee is required to maintain all commercial records and detail record only for a period of 2 years. Incident had taken place on 06.12.2016, therefore, the call details record was required to be preserved by the service provider licencee only upto 05.12.2018. Now, there is no possibility of availability of such call details record. Therefore, same cannot be summon and any order directing Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 9/28/2022 10:54:21 AM 4 Virtual Network Operator to produce such record would be nothing but wastage of time.
Learned trial Court in its order has made it clear that applicant first time moved such application on 26.12.2019 and prior to that they did not move any application before the company to preserve the call record and location of their phones. Therefore, now there is no justification to call the CDR and location of such mobile phones. Learned trial Court in its order has made it clear that deceased was not examined in Shahpura Hospital. Therefore, there is no justification to call any MLC report from the PHC Shahpura. MLC report of injured Ramu is already on record, whereas deceased was never examined in PHC, Shahpura therefore, there is no justification to call for so called MLC report which is not in existence. If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that any doctor had examined the injured in ambulance, he is not required to summon for the defence purpose as he has not given any MLC report and the doctor who has given MLC report and the doctor who had conducted the postmortem of dead body of deceased has already been examined. Therefore, there is no justification to summon such fictitious record which is not in existence and the doctors who had not prepared any MLC report.
In view of above, no fault is visible in the impugned order, passed by the Court below. Thus, this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner has no substance.
Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 9/28/2022 10:54:21 AM 5 JUDGE Jasleen Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 9/28/2022 10:54:21 AM