Preserved CCTV footage of Paschim Vihar Police station found missing from police station malkhana: Advocate Ravi Drall

Preserved CCTV footage of Paschim Vihar Police station found missing from police station malkhana, DCP outer ordered to enquire: Advocate Ravi Drall, Best Criminal Lawyer in Tis Hazari Court, Delhi

Best Criminal Lawyer in Tis Hazari Court, Delhi

Preserved CCTV footage of Paschim Vihar Police station found missing from police station malkhana. Learned Magistrate had order for preservation of CCTV footage of entry gate of Paschim Vihar police station and the same was preserved. But it was shocking when the Magistrate called for preserved CCTV footage and the same was found missing from Malkhana. Preserved CCTV footage could have revealed that accused falsely implicated by police official at 10 PM in night hours was already present in police station since noon hours. The accused, in an Arms Act case, had moved an application seeking preservation of the footage on the ground that he was falsely implicated in Arms Act case by police officials.

The Metropolitan Magistrate Akash Sharma of Tis Hazari Court Delhi on August 24, 2022, noted that “it is brought to the notice of this court that the video footage to be preserved order dated 26.06.2020, which was thereafter seized and preserved in a hard disk and compliance report was filed by SI Pradeep Kumar PS Paschim Vihar West dated July 1, 2021, witnessed by Ct. Ravi and technical producer Satyam, Project Engineer and kept in the malkhana (storeroom) of PS Paschim Vihar West, has been found empty and no data was stored in the hard disk 2TB.

Let this matter be brought to the notice of the DCP concerned as to how despite directions of this court to preserve the CCTV footage of PS Paschim Vihar West, the same was not properly preserved and fix the responsibility of the officers involved due to whose lapse the same has occurred for 08.09.2022, said the court order.

The application was moved by advocate Ravi Drall for the preservation of CCTV footage of the police station and the same was allowed and the DVR of CCTV footage was preserved in Malkhana of Police station. Now when the charge sheet was submitted, the IO of the case was ordered to give a copy of CCTV footage to advocate Ravi Drall but when counsel went to police station Paschim Vihar West he was informed that the DVR was empty which was in Malkhana of the police station.

Call details of five delhi police officials were also preserved in a false arms act case weherein a innocent person was falsely implicated by police officials in Paschim Vihar Police station. Implication of an innocent person in criminal case by fabricating evidences by police officials in a false case is not something new. False implication of someone in a criminal case not only put on stake his Fundaments Rights but it further leads to slip of real culprit from Justice which causes miscarrige of Justice.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-court-seeks-answers-from-cops-after-cctv-footage-goes-missing/articleshow/93791342.cms

https://theprint.in/india/cctv-footage-ordered-to-be-preserved-by-magistrate-court-found-deleted-dcp-court-orders-probe/1100560/

https://www.latestly.com/agency-news/india-news-cctv-footage-ordered-to-be-preserved-by-magistrate-court-found-deleted-dcp-court-orders-probe-4125625.html

The bench further observed that there is nothing in Section 91, which prohibits or puts any embargo or clog on the powers of the In-charge of a Police Station to summon the accused to attend and produce a document or thing which is not incriminatory to the accused, but may be necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation of the offence.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) on Friday answered several significant questions related to Section 91 of CrPC which deals with Summons to produce documents or other things. Essentially, the Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav examined as to when can an accused as also a victim, invoke this Section during a criminal proceedingānd came up with the following conclusion:

  1. An accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the investigation.
  2. However, an accused can invoke Section 91 on and after the filing of the charge sheet.
  3. Section 91 can also be invoked by the other stakeholders i.e. victim and also the prosecution.
  4. The court can also invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. suo moto.
  5. All the above invocation by any stakeholder is subject to satisfaction of the Court about desirability and necessity of the document sought to be produced

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× How can I help you?