Call details don't prove person's presence at particular location: Court

Chandigarh, February 16

Call details of any person’s mobile phone do not prove his presence at a particular location. By saying this, a local court has sentenced Sanjeev Kumar to five-year rigorous imprisonment after convicting him under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The court has also imposed a fine of Rs50,000 on Sanjeev, a resident of Tonga village, Mullanpur, Mohali district, who was arrested in 2018 with 8 injections of Buprenorphine of 2 ml each and 8 injections of Pheniramine Maleate of 10 ml each in Chandigarh.

The counsel for the accused argued that the latter was falsely implicated in the case. He alleged that the accused was picked up from Sector 37 where he had gone to attend a refrigerator complaint. But he was shown to have been picked up from some other location. He was taken to a police station where he was forced to admit the possession of contraband.

The counsel said he moved an application for directing the DSP to preserve the call details of the mobile of the police officer investigating the case. But the order passed on that application by the court was not complied with by the authorities concerned. Had it been so, the truth would have come out.

The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that no prejudice had been caused to the accused because of noncompliance with the order of the court. The prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused with cogent and convincing evidence.

After hearing of the arguments, Dr Rajneesh, Additional Sessions Judge, rejected the contention of the counsel for the accused. The court says that even if, for the sake of arguments, the plea of the defence could be considered, the ‘tower location’ and not the ‘call details’ could be of some relevance. It is not necessary for a person to carry his/her mobile phone to each and every destination. Last but not least, even if the call details or tower location is preserved or proved, that may not be the sole piece of evidence to curtail that of the prosecution’s case which has remained unrebutted from all angles.

The court further says that above all, there is no glaring contradiction between the timings of the alleged recovery and the proceedings carried out by the police officials. Moreover, no cogent or convincing evidence in this regard has been brought forth. “No doubt, the order regarding preservation of call details of the police officer has not been complied with by the official/authority concerned. The department concerned may look into the matter and take appropriate action, if deemed necessary. Though much stress has been laid by the defence counsel on the point of non-compliance of the order, he has failed to convince the court as to how the call details of any of the police officer could prove the presence of the accused at Sector 37 and not the place of alleged recovery. The call detail of the mobile phone of any person do not prove his presence at a particular location,” says the court in the order.

What Judge observes

It is not necessary for a person to carry his/her mobile phone to each and every destination. Last but not least, even if the call details or tower location is preserved or proved, that may not be the sole piece of evidence to curtail that of the prosecution’s case which has remained unrebutted from all angles.