Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/48790/2018 of GOKUL SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2018
Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal
1
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, JabalpurBench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.48790/2018
(Gokul Singh s/o Dhuraram
VersusThe State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 31.12.2018
Mr. Abhay Kumar Saraswat, learned counsel on behalf of Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for thepetitioner.
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Public Prosecutor for therespondent / State of Madhya Pradesh.
They are heard.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
This application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitionerassailing order of learned Additional Sessions Judge,Garoth District Mandsaur (MP) dated 12.11.2018 passed inSessions Trial No.164/2018, whereby the learned Judgedismissed the application filed by the petitioner underSections 91 and 92 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973and under Section 65 of Information Technology Act,2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that CallDetails of Mobile Nos.[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] (ofGokul Singh), 947976126 (of Pratap Singh), [REDACTED]and [REDACTED] (of Assistant Sub Inspector Gendalal),[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] (of Constable RaviBhandari), [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED],[REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED] and[REDACTED] (of Kailash Joshi, Sunil Yadav, Rakesh Pithawe RC
Kumar, Kan Singh, Dilip Nagar and Station House OfficerGopal Singh respectively) must be preserved, as recordmay be required for adducing his defence and also on theground that such details are destroyed after lapse of oneyear. According to the petitioner, he wants to provelocation of the concerning police personnel at the time ofincident.
3. Learned trial Judge dismissed the applicationobserving that these details are not necessary and he canprove his defence by cross-examining the concerned policepersonnel.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties.
5. In view of the allegation made in the complaint, theapplication is partly allowed. It is directed that learnedTrial Judge shall send the intimation to the concerningCompany to preserve the record of the Calls made by andon the Mobile numbers as mentioned above, also theirlocations on the relevant point of time, proof of whichshall be subject to proof of ownership of these number.
6. Accordingly, MiscellaneousCriminalCaseNo.48790/2018 stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Vacation Judge