Allowed

Dinesh Satish Luthra v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Sept 2021WP/2503/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a POCSO prosecution, the petitioner-accused sought a copy of pendrive footage as an electronic record. Relying on Article 227 and Supreme Court precedent, the High Court set aside an order refusing the copy due to privacy concerns and directed the prosecution to provide it within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; prosecution directed to handover copy of electronic record to petitioner within two weeks.

Dinesh Satish Luthra Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/3

¶2

WP-2503-2021 (SR.29)
8Sept,2021

¶3

Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL W RIT PETITION NO. 2503 OF 2021

¶6

Dinesh Satish Luthra .....Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent

¶9

* * * *

¶10

Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for State.

¶12

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

¶13

 W ednesday, 8th September, 2021.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶16

of India, challenges the order dated 16th March, 2021 passed in

¶17

Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 385/2018.

¶18

2. Petitioner is cited as an accused in the subject

¶19

POCSO case. Prosecution relies on a Pendrive which is a

¶20

‘document’, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(t) of the

¶21

2/3

¶22

WP-2503-2021 (SR.29)
8Sept,2021

¶23

Rane

¶24

Information Technology Act. This Pendrive contains the

¶25

footage of commission of offence allegedly committed by the
petitioner. Although the petitioner sought footage in the form
of CD/Pendrive, it was not supplied to him. When he applied
for the same to the Special Judge, it was declined on the ground
that, it could disclose victim’s identity. Mr. Tajane, learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the prosecution
has relied on the electronic record i.e. Footage, accused is
entitled to a copy of the same to enable him to present an
effective defence during the trial. Mr.Tajane, relies on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
P.Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs. State of Kerala and
Another, (2020) AIR (SC) 1. Para-44 of the judgment
reads as under :

¶26

“44. In conclusion, we hold that the contents of
the memory card/pen drive being electronic record
must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is
relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be
given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to
present an effective defence during the trial. However,
in cases involving issues such as of privacy of the

¶27

3/3

¶28

WP-2503-2021 (SR.29)
8Sept,2021

¶29

Rane

¶30

complainant/witness or his/her identity, the Court
may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to
the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting
effective defence during the trial. The court may issue
suitable directions to balance the interests of both
sides.”

¶31

3. I have perused the chargesheet. Prosecution relies
on this electronic device i.e. 16GB Pendrive in support of the
charge framed against the petitioner. As such, the applicant is

¶32

entitled to a copy of the footage/pendrive/CD. In
consideration of the facts of the case and in view of the

¶33

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan
(supra),the order dated 16th March, 2021 is set aside.
Prosecution is directed to handover copy of the electronic
record i.e. footage/pendrive/CD to the petitioner-accused
within two weeks from today. The petition is disposed of in the

¶34

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2021.09.09 17:14:37 +0530

¶35

aforesaid terms.

¶36

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Dinesh Satish Luthra v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Satish Luthra v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Sudhir Sanas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath @ Sonya Raghunath @ Raghuji Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hiten Jethalal Gala and Anr. Vs Rbl Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Deven Mangaldas Bhanushali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aslam Mohammed Kazi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Union of India Vs Yogesh Narayanrao Deshmukh and Anr.