‘Does not affect investigative prerogatives’; Delhi HC upholds order to preserve Call Detail Records, location data of CBI officials and independent witnesses

Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed under Section 397¹ read with Section 482² of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), challenging the order dated 12-07-2023, passed by Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (‘Trial Court’), whereby, it was directed to preserve Call Detail Records (‘CDR’) and location data of CBI officials and independent witnesses in connection with FIR registered under Section 120-B³ of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Chandra Dhari Singh, J., found no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, as it merely directed the preservation of potential evidence without affecting the prosecution’s case or investigative prerogatives. The impugned order was well within the Trial Court’s discretionary powers and did not confer any unwarranted advantage to the accused at this stage. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order.

Background

The case arose out of a complaint filed by the complainant, before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, alleging that the respondent (Junior Engineer, MCD) and co-accused (Beldar, MCD) demanded a bribe of Rs. 7,000 to allow him to store construction materials outside his shop.

Based on the complaint, the petitioner (‘CBI’) conducted verification proceedings, following which a trap operation was conducted, which led to the arrest of co-accused, who was caught red-handed accepting the bribe on behalf of the respondent allegedly. According to the charge-sheet, the respondent was arrested on 06-06-2022 and was released on bail on 23-06-2022.

During the trial proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Section 207 of the CrPC read with Section 91 of the CrPC, seeking copies of unrelied statements and documents arguing that access to such documents could not be denied merely because the prosecution deemed them irrelevant. The respondent also sought preservation of CDRs and location data of CBI officers and independent witnesses, contending that such records could be crucial for his defence.

The Trial Court allowed the said application directing the preservation of CDRs and location data for specific dates related to the verification and trap proceedings on the ground that it was necessary to safeguard accused person’s right to a fair trial ensuring that the relevant records remain available if required at the appropriate stage of proceedings.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner had preferred the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the same.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

1. Whether the present revision petition was maintainable under Section 397(2) of the CrPC, given that the impugned order was alleged to be interlocutory in nature.

From the collective analysis of legal definitions and judicial pronouncements, the Court stated that it was evident that an interlocutory order was one that did not finally determine the rights of the parties and merely addressed a procedural or interim aspect necessary for the progression of the case. The primary test to determine whether an order was interlocutory was whether, if reversed, it would terminate the proceedings. If the order does not conclusively decide the case or any substantial right of the parties, it was interlocutory in nature and thus, barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the CrPC.

The Court stated that in the present case, the impugned order merely directed the preservation of CDRs and location charts, ensuring that such data remained available if required at a later stage. It did not grant immediate access to the records, nor did it alter the prosecution’s case in any manner. There was no element of finality in the order, as it neither adjudicated upon the guilt or innocence of the accused nor conclusively affected the prosecution’s ability to conduct the trial.

The Court stated that since the order was procedural and interlocutory in nature, its reversal would not terminate the proceedings. Therefore, it was barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the CrPC, rendering the present revision petition not maintainable.

2. Whether the inherent powers of this Court could be invoked to interfere with the impugned order and whether any miscarriage of justice had occurred that warranted judicial intervention.

The Court stated that the purpose of the impugned order was not to provide the accused with evidence at this stage but to ensure that relevant records were not lost due to automatic deletion by telecom service providers. Furthermore, upon perusal of the pleadings and submissions of the petitioner, the Court stated that it was evident that no specific grounds were raised justifying interference under Section 482 of the CrPC. The present petition did not disclose any exceptional circumstances where the impugned order led to an abuse of process or results in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court stated that since the CDRs and location data was only ordered to be preserved and not disclosed, there was no basis for the petitioner’s apprehension that this would provide an undue advantage to the defence. The direction did not interfere with the prosecution’s case but simply ensured that potentially relevant evidence was not lost due to automatic deletion. Therefore, the Court stated that the petitioner’s contention regarding prejudice to the prosecution or an unfair advantage to the respondent was unfounded.

The Court stated that the petitioner had not demonstrated any abuse of process or miscarriage of justice which were the only recognized grounds for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Thus, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, as it merely directed the preservation of potential evidence without affecting the prosecution’s case or investigative prerogatives. The impugned order was well within the Trial Court’s discretionary powers and did not confer any unwarranted advantage to the accused at this stage. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order.

Taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the information and data, the Court stated that the Trial Court should ensure that no sensitive information, including the identity of investigating officers, was disclosed in a manner that might compromise their security or ongoing investigations. Any disclosure of such records should be made strictly in accordance with the law, ensuring that the gravity of the sensitive nature of the records, the confidentiality of investigative operations, and the security of officers involved in other investigations were duly safeguarded.

[CBI v. Neeraj Kumar, CRL.Rev.P. 1194 of 2023, decided on 04-03-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Ravi Sharma, SPP with Swapnil Choudhary, Ishann Bhardwaj, Sagar and Madhulika Raj Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Tushar Agarwal, Naveen Kumar, Arun Kumar, Abhiswhek Mahal and Tripti Roy, Advocates.

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE