9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te 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 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Special Judge, NDPS, Indore has been dismissed. 2. The Appellant is being prosecuted before the Special Judge, NDPS, Indore for offences punishable Under Sections 8, 21, 22, 29 read with 8(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution case it appears is that the Appellant was nabbed in front of Yashica Palace hotel near Gangwal bus stand at Indore between 1800 and 1900 hrs. on 24.02.2013 by the Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau carrying 610 gms of heroin and 40 gms. of Alprazolam in a bag which was seized by the Officer effecting the arrest. A mobile phone Sim No. 90395020407 was also according to the prosecution, seized from the possession of the Appellant. While the trial has yet to commence on the charge sheet f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent-UOI. Ms. Makhija contended that the call details which the Appellant seeks to summon under the orders of the court will be extremely vital for proving that the Appellant was not arrested at the time and place alleged by the prosecution. The fact that the Officers who effected the arrest were during the relevant period at different locations would clearly belie the prosecution case in that regard. Inasmuch as the trial court and the High Court declined to summon the call details the orders passed by them have the effect of denying to the Appellant the opportunity to prove his innocence thereby causing prejudice to him in his defence. 4. On behalf of the Respondent it was argued by Mr. Luthra that while call details were admissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 7. 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 detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
