Golu @ Sandeep Dawade vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25/10/2018 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Sagar in Special Case No.06/2018, whereby learned Special Judge rejected the applicant'™s application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.

Applicant is facing trial before the Special Judge, Sagar in the Special Case No.06/2018. During trial of the case applicant/accused filed an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. praying that the following information be made available to the applicant before framing the charge against him :-

(A) CCTV footage dated 04/03/2018 to 06/03/2018 of Police Station:Padmakar Nagar, Sagar,

(B) Names of the arrested persons kept in prison at Police Station: Padmakar-Nagar, from 04/03/2018 to 05/03/2018,

(C) CCTV footage dated 05/03/2018, of 12:00 to 17:00 pm of Cameras installed near Makrouinya Railway Station,

(D) Tower Location of mobiles carried by informant Sub-Inspector Praveen Malviya, P.S. Padmakar Nagar and his staff members.

Prosecution opposed the prayer stating that the data of CCTV footage of Camera installed in police station remains saved only for 15 days after which it is automatically erased. The information of other arrested person sought does not relate to the case of applicant. No CCTV camera was installed at the scene of crime. Tower location and the call details of the police officers cannot be provided as they were on official duties, so application be dismissed.

Learned Special Judge after hearing the arguments of both the parties rejected the applicant'™s application observing that the information sought by the applicant through application is not relevant at the stage of framing of charge. Being aggrieved from that order, applicant filed this petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Information sought by the applicant is necessary to prove his innocence in the case. Learned Trial Court wrongly rejected applicant'™s application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. Applicant has a right to file application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. at any stage, further no provision exists in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any law, so as to restrict the applicant'™s right to seek the evidence which is necessary to just decision of the case. In this regard learned counsel also placed reliance on the Apex Court judgement passed in Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin and Anr. Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nithya Bhaktananda & and Anr., (2018) 2 SCC 93.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the information sought by the applicant is necessary for just decision of the case, so prosecution may directed to make available the said information to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/accused is not maintainable. So, learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant'™s application.

This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for both the parties.

The Hon'™ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 clearly held that the defense could not be considered at the stage of framing of charge so as to avoid a mini trial. Hon'™ble Apex Court in the case of Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin and Anr. vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy (Supra) as relied by the learned counsel of the applicant also held that "œit is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91 of Cr.P.C.- however, the court being under obligation to impart justice and to uphold law, is not debarred from exercising its power, if the interest of justice in a given case so require, even if the accused may have no right to invoke Section 91 to exercise his power, the court is to be satisfied that the material available with investigator, not made part of the charge-sheet, has crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge.

While in this case the applicant did not seek any information/material, which was collected by the Investigator during investigation and prosecution did not produce that information/material along with the charge-sheet, so the judgment i.e. Nitya Dharmananda (supra), upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicant do not assist  the applicant much.

Even otherwise in the reply of State it is clearly mentioned that the CCTV footage of Police Station, Padmakar Nagar, Sagar is erased automatically after 15 days. Likewise the information sought regarding other arrested persons also does not relate to the case of applicant. As regard to the tower location and call details of the police officers, it appears from the case diary that learned Special Judge has already directed Superintendent of Police, Sagar to make call details of Sub-Inspector Praveen Malviya (Mobile No.8817504525 & 7587608087), Constable No.244 Manishankar (Mobile No.9754113117), Constable No.230 Sushil (Mobile No.7587621950) and Constable No.729 Abid (Mobile No.9755312200) available.

So in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applicant's application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis that the information sought by the applicant through application is not relevant at the stage of framing of charge.

Hence, this petition is dismissed.