A Delhi courtroom dismissed an utility by advocate Mehmood Pracha in reference to the Delhi Police raids at this workplace, stating that he can’t “dictate the IO (investigation officer) concerning the mode and method for assortment of proof in an investigation”.
Calling it baseless, Chief Metropolitan Justice of the Peace Dr Pankaj Sharma dismissed the appliance and ordered the execution of search warrants. Pracha has now appealed in opposition to the order earlier than a periods courtroom, which has listed the matter for Saturday.
“The plea of the applicant about his supply of ‘goal information’ in pen drive can solely be thought-about by the IO topic to the difficulty of admissibility, and the courtroom’s intervention just isn’t correct. Additionally, the accused can’t dictate IO concerning the mode and method for assortment of proof in an investigation. Accordingly, within the thought-about view of this courtroom, the objections raised by the applicant are baseless. Let the search warrant be executed in accordance with legislation, topic to the safeguards, as per professional opinion,” CMM Sharma acknowledged in his order.
On Pracha counting on Part 126 of The Indian Proof Act, which offers with personal communication between a shopper and his lawyer, and Bar Council conduct guidelines, the courtroom mentioned reliance on them is “misplaced as identical envisages voluntary sharing of knowledge/communication by the advocate or deposing in opposition to the shopper. Nonetheless, the identical is completely different on this matter as information is to be collected by police on account of investigation in a legal case. The plea for non-sharing of knowledge of different purchasers of the applicant is past the scope of part 126 of Indian Proof Act.”
The courtroom mentioned that “by forensic instruments, it’s doable to soundly segregate ‘goal information’ from different information with none interference/alteration whereas preserving its authenticity and integrity, and on the identical time guaranteeing the admissibility of goal information with out evidential vulnerabilities.”
It additionally noticed that the “assortment of proof is intrinsic to the investigation and fingers of the investigators can’t be tied to forestall them from gathering proof. Assortment of knowledge from its supply is completed to make sure its admissibility throughout trial and it’s crucial for the IO to gather finest type of proof throughout investigation as per its personal discretion.”
Moreover, the courtroom mentioned if “IO feels the goal information is to be retrieved from its supply which is tough drive of the pc of applicant for investigation, the mentioned choice of IO can’t be interfered with by the courtroom, nor can accused dictate him as how proof is to be collected, whether it is clear that different information may be protected against being interfered with by the IO.”
Earlier this yr, a raid had been carried out at Pracha’s workplace by police over an FIR, whereby it’s alleged he had tutored a witness to provoke a false case in reference to the Delhi riots.