Vipin K.V.Vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P., J

This Crl.M.C. has been filed challenging Annexure-3 order in Crl.M.P.No.34 of 2023 in S.C.No.406 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.406 of 2022 alleging commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had filed Annexure-1 petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. praying for the following relief;

“Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Sate Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio Info comm. Ltd. (Respondent No.2) to produce the CDRs of the following mobile phone numbers of the Petitioner/Accused(9947045600 & 9995845232 – Jio) and the alleged Victim (CW-1) (9xxxxxxxxx-Jio) for the period 15/01/2021 to 11/06/2021 duly certified under Sec.65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act before this Hon’ble Court in the above case-S.C.No.406/2022 at the earliest, in the interest of justice.”

Aggrieved by non-consideration of that application, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.372 of 2023 which was disposed of by Annexure-2 order directing that the said application shall be considered within a period of two weeks and on finding that it may be necessary for the petitioner to rely on Call Details Records for the purposes of mounting his defence. Annexure-3 order was passed in compliance with the directions contained in Annexure-2 order of this Court. Reading of Annexure-3 order will indicate that the Court has directed the service provider to maintain the Call Details Records in respect of the telephone numbers mentioned in Annexure-1 petition and has also directed that the service provider shall produce those records, as and when called for by the Court. The petitioner is only aggrieved by the fact that the Court has not summoned the records presently.

The learned Public Prosecutor refers to Annexure-3 order and submits that the reason for not summoning the records at present is clearly spelt out in the order. It is submitted that reading of Annexure-3 order also shows that the Call Details Records have been directed to be preserved by the service provider and it is also indicated that the same will be summoned, if necessary, at the stage of trial. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the petitioner is not at all prejudiced by Annexure-3 order to the extend it does not immediately summon the records, as prayed for by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petition is premature as the charges are yet to be framed and since no hearing on charge has been held and no charges have been framed against the petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the learned Public Prosecutor is right in contending that the petitioner is really not aggrieved by Annexure-3 order to the extend it does not summon the Call Details Records presently. The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been allowed to the extend of directing the service provider to maintain the Call Details Records to be produced, as and when summoned by the Court. It is open to the petitioner to seek the production of the Call Details Records by filing an appropriate petition at an appropriate stage of the proceedings. Since this Court has already observed in Annexure-2 order that it may be necessary for the petitioner to rely on those documents for the purposes of mounting his defence, I see no reason for the petitioner to apprehend that the Court will not issue summons for production of those documents at the appropriate stage.

The Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations.