Dismissed

Shahbaz Shah S/O Jabir Shah v. State of Mah. through Police Station Officer, P.S. Telhara

Bombay HC3 May 2018WP/409/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition appealing against the rejection of applications for call records and mobile ownership by the Sessions Judge. The Court upheld the lower order, ruling the applications had no substance and the records were either not relevant or could be produced by defense witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Rejected applications for call records and mobile ownership information by upholding the Sessions Judge's findings on relevance and authenticity.

Shahbaz Shah S/O Jabir Shah Vs State of Mah… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp409of18.doc 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION 409 OF 2018

¶4

(Shahbaz Shah s/o Jabir Shah...vs.. The State, thr PSO PS Telhara)

¶5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar’s Orders.

¶6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shri A.B. Mirza, counsel for petitioner. Smt. S.V. Kolhe, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.

¶7

CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J. DATE: 3 rd May , 2018.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

2 The petitioner is facing trial for offence punishable under section 354(1)(4) read with section 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under section 8,12 and 11 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The prosecution has closed the evidence and the statement of the petitioner – accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶10

3 The accused stepped into the witness box as DW-1. At this stage, the petitioner – accused moved three applications. The first application Exh. 73 is an application for calling information of true caller record of mobile 7385805234, the second application Exh. 74 seeks information as regards the ownership of mobile 7385805234 and the third application

¶11

wp409of18.doc 2

¶12

Exh. 75 is an application for calling for the record of mobile 8421952873, of the accused.

¶13

4 The allegation against the petitioner is that he misbehaved with the minor victim. The accused made gestures, pulled the odhni (stole) of the victim, passed offensive and objectionable comments and handed over to the victim a slip with the phone number of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the applications has inter-alia recorded a finding that in the teeth of the allegations for which the accused is facing trial, the call records are not relevant. I see no reason to take a different view. In so far as application Exh. 73 is concerned, the additional reason given by the learned Sessions Judge is that the true caller record is nothing more than the collection of details by the concerned company and can not be treated as authentic record. In so far as Exh. 74 is concerned, the reason recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is that confirmation of the ownership of the mobile belonging to the sister of the victim has no nexus whatsoever with the allegations against the accused. In so far as application Exh. 75 is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the call record details of the mobile of the accused can be proved by the accused by taking appropriate steps.

¶14

5 I do not find any infirmity whatsoever in any of the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The

¶15

wp409of18.doc 3

¶16

accused is free to examine such defence witnesses including the witnesses to prove the call record, if according to the accused the record is vital to probabilize the defence.

¶17

7 The petition is sans substance, and is rejected.

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

rsb

Shahbaz Shah S/O Jabir Shah v. State of Mah. through Police Station Officer, P.S. Telhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahbaz Shah S/O Jabir Shah v. State of Mah. through Police Station Officer, P.S. Telhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Pandurang Harake. Vs State of Mah.Thr.P.S.O.Khaparkheda.

Kunal Pramod Mishra Vs Manish Purushottam Manshani Prop. of Manish Auto Dist. Wardha

Smt. Pratibha Anil Soni Vs Shri. Kailas Haribhau Wankhede

M/S. Trimurti Pashu Aahar Udyog Ltd. Thr Prop Smt Kamalaben Kantilal Kataria Her Poa Yogesh Kataria Vs M/S. Manoj Enterprises, Thr. Prop. Shri. Manoj S/O. Nandkishore Mundhada

Gangadhar Motiramji Thumse and Others Vs Shri Sunil Mehta, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (Deleted) and Another

Shri. Jagdish S/O. Sitaram Karwa Prop. of M/S. Shri. Salasar Inc. Vs Seahorse Infologix and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Chairman Cum Managing Director and Another