used in three mobile sets having different IMEI numbers. He further
deposed that the IMEI numbers of those three sets of mobile are having last ... same. PW35
further deposed that all the three aforesaid IMEI numbers were sent to different
mobile companies for searching the SIM numbers which have been
Cbi vs . 1 Anand Mohan Sharan, on 4 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ
Station, Kirti Nagar and produced three stolen mobile phones of
different companies with IMEI numbers, which were seized vide
memo ... Kirti Nagar, Delhi and
produced two stolen mobile phones of different companies with
IMEI numbers and the same were seized vide memo
extortion etc in
Delhi and U.P. From call detail analysis and IMEI number search of
mobile phone belonging to suspect Vinod @ Gola ... Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi by using the same number but
using different IMEIs. Call detail analysis indicated that suspects had
been moving in Uttranchal after
from the possession of the
accused persons, two mobile phones bear different IMEI Numbers in
seizure memo from their actual numbers; two mobile phones ... Sandeep etc 5/10
were material contradictions regarding the timings of different steps
taken during investigation in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
Further
proved. The said
details are referring to the IMEI No.352524002382000. Thus, there is a difference in the co-
relation of two IMEI numbers ... similar position had arisen wherein
there was a difference in the last digit of the IMEI number as noted down in the call details
Oberoi CA 287/17
15. This left the Court with details of IMEI number referred in
Ex.PW1/A which ... last digit
reflected in the IMEI in the CDRs is different from the IMEI
number provided in the Chargesheet.
18. The Prosecution argues that
recovered from the accused, four
mobile phones were having different last digit in their IMEI numbers
in comparison to the seizure memo. Therefore, difference ... property, absence of
ownership documents of the case property, difference in last digit in
IMEI numbers of four mobile phones with comparison to seizure
memo
mobile
instrument bearing IMEI No. 358061003458460 was used to operate all three
mobile numbers, i.e., 9910222660, 9810798109 and 9818998187 at different
point of time ... numbers were being
used by one person having custody of mobile bearing IMEI No.
358061003458460 and both telephone nos. 9810798109 and 9818998187
admittedly belonged
present applicant also cannot be relied upon as the
IMEI numbers are different. It was also submitted that no evidence has been
placed on record
