Appeal against the order of High Court of Rajasthan directing all courts to decide forthwith the applications moved to summon the call details
3. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.273 of 2020, whereby the High Court while allowing the said petition has directed all Courts in the State of Rajasthan that whenever an application is moved to summon the Call-details by the accused during the criminal proceedings, the same shall not be deferred and will be decided forthwith.
Accused’s application for summoning call details rejected by the Trial court but allowed by the high court
4. In the instant case, the respondent-accused is facing the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.18/2019 for the offences under Sections 8/18, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The respondent-accused had filed an application before the Trial Court for summoning of the call details of the Seizure Officer and some other police officials for the date of seizure, i.e., 15.02.2019.
5. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide the order dated 03.01.2020, against which the respondent had filed the Miscellaneous Petition, which has been allowed by the High Court vide the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant- State has rightly drawn the attention of this Court to the legal position settled by this Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, in which a Three Judge Bench of this Court has held as under: –
“para.25”
Accused has no right to invoke section 91 during framing of charges
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision in the case of Nitya Dharmananda Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93, to submit that the court being under the obligation to impart justice, is not debarred from exercising its power under Section 91 Cr.P.C., if the interest of justice in a given case so requires. However the said decision is not helpful to the respondent. In the said decision also, it has been observed that the accused cannot invoke and would not have right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge. In view of the law laid down by the Three Judge Bench in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (supra), we are inclined to accept the present appeal.
Party
STATE OF RAJASTHAN …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SWARN SINGH @ BABA …RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL No.856 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.3146 of 2021) – 12th FEBRUARY, 2024
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/4181/4181_2021_15_32_50319_Order_12-Feb-2024.pdf
