2014 (5) TMI 1175 - SC - Indian Laws

Application for tracing location of three mobile numbers - Smuggling - Heroin - NDPS Act, 1985 - Appellant contended that the telephone numbers of the Officer effecting the arrest and making the seizure would show that the officers concerned were at some other locations during the time the Appellant s arrest and resultant seizures are alleged to have been made. Held that - That electronic records are admissible evidence in criminal trials is not in dispute. Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act make such records admissible subject to the fulfillment of the requirements stipulated therein which includes a certificate in terms of Section 65B(4) of the said Act. To that extent the Appellant has every right to summon whatever is relevant and admissible in his defence including electronic record relevant to finding out the location of the officers effecting the arrest. Be that as it may we do not at this stage wish to pre-judge the issue which would eventually fall for the consideration of the Trial Court. All that we are concerned with is whether call details which the Appellant is demanding can be denied to him on the ground that such details are likely to prejudice the case of the prosecution by exposing their activities in relation to similar other cases and individuals. It is not however in dispute that the call details are being summoned only for purposes of determining the exact location of the officers concerned at the time of the alleged arrest of the Appellant from Yashica Palace hotel near the bus stand. Ms. Makhijamadea candid concession that any other information contained in the call details will be of no use to the Appellant and that the Appellant would not insist upon disclosure of such information. Interest of justice would in our opinion be sufficiently served if we direct the Trial Court to summon from the Companies concerned call details of Sim telephone No. 9039520407 and 7415593902 of Tata Docomo company and in regard to Sim No. 9165077714 of Airtel company for the period 24.02.2013 between 4.30 to 8.30 p.m - We further direct that calling numbers and the numbers called from the said mobile phone shall be blacked out by the companies while furnishing such details. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of summoning call details by the Trial Court and High Court.
2. Admissibility of electronic records in criminal trials.
3. Balancing the right of the accused to summon relevant evidence with the potential prejudice to the prosecution.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from the dismissal of the Appellant's plea to summon call details by the High Court. The Appellant sought to prove his innocence by demonstrating that the officers who arrested him were not present at the alleged location. The Trial Court and High Court refused the plea, leading to the Appellant's claim of prejudice in his defense.

2. The admissibility of electronic records in criminal trials, governed by Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, was emphasized. The Appellant had the right to summon relevant electronic records, subject to fulfilling the Act's requirements, including a certificate under Section 65B(4). The Court refrained from pre-judging the issue, leaving it for the Trial Court's consideration.

3. The Court deliberated on the balance between the Appellant's right to summon evidence and the potential prejudice to the prosecution. While acknowledging the admissibility of call details, the Court addressed the concerns of exposing sensitive information. To mitigate this risk, the Court directed the Trial Court to summon call details for specific numbers during a particular period, with caller information blacked out to protect the prosecution's interests. By ensuring only relevant information was disclosed, the Court aimed to serve the interests of justice while safeguarding sensitive details.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous decisions and directing the Trial Court to summon limited call details with caller information blacked out, striking a balance between the Appellant's defense rights and the prosecution's concerns.