Kerala HC: Under which circumstances prime facie case for offence under NDPS Act is made out against accused even if no contraband is seized from his possession

 The offences alleged against the petitioner include the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Section 29 of the NDPS Act reads as follows:

29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.

(1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.

(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which-

(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or

(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India."

9. A perusal of the same would show that an accused can be prosecuted even if no contraband is seized from him, provided there is evidence to show that there is abetment and criminal conspiracy. In other words, the Section would show that the actual possession of the contraband is not necessary to convict a person for the offences under the NDPS Act. If abetment and criminal conspiracy are proved, the accused can be convicted.

10. In this case, there is a telephonic conversation between the 1st accused and the petitioner. The prosecution alleges that there is a conspiracy between accused Nos. 1 and 2. When such a case is put up by the prosecution, this Court cannot observe that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner, while considering a bail application. It is a matter of evidence. A bail court need not consider the admissibility of the call details produced by the prosecution to prove conspiracy and abetment in all cases.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl. No. 2181 of 2025

Decided On: 20.02.2025

Anzar Azeez Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.

 Citation: 2025/KER/15357, MANU/KE/0765/2025

Print Page

Whether accused can seek direction U/S 91 of CRPC for supply of call details and location chart of investigating officer?

 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length & gone through the available records. After hearing the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and the rival contention and after perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that the petitioner is seeking direction from this Court for the supply of the call details of the calls made from the mobile phone of the investigating officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that the calls made from the mobile of the investigating officer would indicate the presence, location and the activities of the investigating officer whereas the case of the State is that in the details of mobile calls of the investigating officer, it is not suggested to be the calls relating to the present case and apart from the present case, the investigating officer being a police officer, had been dealing with the other matters and activities of various other accused and with regard to the duty assigned to him. Further contention made by the prosecution is that the accused could not claim the record of various activities of the investigating officer and he has to restrict to the activity of the investigating officer in the present case only. The prosecution has claimed that accused does not have any right to have the information about the final activities of the investigating officer and that cannot be limited to the activity in the present case. So, the accused could not be said to be entitled for seeking the details of records of all the calls made or calls received from the mobile phone of the investigating officer. {Para 8}

9. The Seamed Magistrate has delivered a reasoned order for the denial of the claim of the petitioner. Similar reasoned order has also been passed by the revisional Court i.e. Court of Sessions. This Court is not of any different view than the one taken by learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as by the Court of Sessions. So the view of the Trial Court as well as the Court of Sessions is upheld by this Court also. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. M.C. No. 406/2016

Decided On: 18.07.2016

Attar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: P.S. Teji, J.

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3907,MANU/DE/2928/2016.

Print Page

How to prove call details record(CDR) in court as per Indian law?

 Proving Call Detail Records (CDRs) in court under Indian law involves several steps to ensure their admissibility and authenticity as evidence. Here’s a step-by-step guide to the process:

1. Obtain the CDRs Legally:

• Legal Procedure: CDRs must be obtained through a legal procedure, typically by a court order or by a request from a law enforcement agency during an investigation.
• Authority: The request for CDRs should be made by an authorized officer, usually not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, and should be sanctioned by a competent authority as per the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. Ensure Authenticity:

Print Page

Whether the court can rely on call details of mobile used in crime if prosecution fails to prove connection between owner of that Sim and custody of accused of that SIM?

  As regards the call data and the ransom calls, we may note that Santosh Jadhav, Assistant Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication, was examined as PW-17 and spoke of the call data of mobile number 8305620342 from which the ransom calls were made. According to him, the SIM card with the said mobile number was given to one Bhuraji, son of Deepu, whose address was House No. 433, Sanjay Gandhi Ward, Tehsil Jabalpur. He produced Bhuraji's 'Customer Application Form' along with his attached Election ID card. These documents were marked as Ex. D6. The call data of 28.03.2013 showed that this SIM card was used on the mobile handset with IMEI No. 358327028551270. He marked in evidence Ex. P35 in that regard. Therefore, the mobile number from which ransom calls were made was in the name of one Bhuraji, s/o. Deepu, and his address was available. However, the police did not even attempt to contact Bhuraji or examine him to find out how and why his SIM card was used for making the ransom calls. Even more startling is the fact that, though PW-17 placed on record actual proof of the allotment of this mobile number to Bhuraji (Ex. D6), no such steps were taken by the police to establish the link between Om Prakash Yadav and mobile number 9993135127, which was attributed to him. PW-15 baldly stated that the said mobile number was allotted to Om Prakash Yadav but did not mark in evidence any document in proof thereof. Surprisingly, he had stated in his deposition that he had brought the certified copy of the application form and the ID used when this SIM card was allotted to the subscriber, Om Prakash Yadav, but the same were not marked. In effect, no palpable connection is established between the said mobile number and Om Prakash Yadav. In the absence of such a tangible link, the call data report (Ex. P31) and the contents thereof are practically useless in establishing the prosecution's case that the ransom calls were made from Om Prakash Yadav's mobile phone handset by inserting Bhuraji's SIM card, with mobile number 8305620342, therein.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 793-794 of 2022 and 795 of 2022

Decided On: 21.09.2023

 Rajesh and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala and P.V. Sanjay Kumar, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: : MANU/SC/1040/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Can the court refuse to release the accused on bail if the prosecution produces Call Details without a Transcript Of the Conversation?

 With respect to the call details, suffice to say that no dates on which the said calls had been allegedly made by the co-accused,

Rakesh Sharma and Ravdeep Singh alias Sheru to the petitioners or vice-versa have been mentioned in the affidavit or in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Moreover, even the transcript of the said conversations are not a part of the record under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A Division Bench of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau's case (supra), was pleased to observe as under:-

Still further, no conversation detail between accused

Ramesh Kumar Patil and accused Sandeep has been produced

by the prosecution. Mere call details is not sufficient to prove

that Sandeep accused was also involved in the business of

narcotic drugs or he had any connected with Ramesh Kumar

Patil. In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of

leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandeep accused.”

In judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Yash Jayeshbhai

Champaklal Shah's case (supra), it has been observed as under:-

“Having heard learned advocates for the appearing parties, it

emerges on record that the applicant is not found in

possession of any contraband article. Over and above that,

the call data records may reveal that in an around the time of

incident, he was in contact with the co-accused who were

found in possession of contraband. Since there is no recording

of conversation in between the accused, mere contacts with the

co-accused who were found in possession cannot be treated to

be a corroborative material in absence of substantive material

found against the accused.”

A perusal of the above judgment would show that without the

transcript of the conversations exchanged between the co-accused, mere call details would not be considered to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

 CRM-M-39657 of 2020 (O&M)

Vikrant Singh  Vs. State of Punjab 

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Author: VIKAS BAHL, J.

Date of Decision:06.04.2022

Print Page

Whether the court can convict accused if the investigating officer has failed to procure evidence regarding call details?

True, the mobile tower location, with respect to the mobile of accused and deceased if produced, would have assisted, but, failure of investigating agency to procure said evidence would not frustrate the entire prosecution case as other clinching material is available. Needless to say that the lapses on the part of the investigating agency would not benefit the accused, unless the lapses relate to vital aspects.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal Nos. 503, 507, 572 of 2013, 278 and 279 of 2014

Decided On: 05.09.2019

 Lalit Ramesh Prabhawat  Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Z.A. Haq and Vinay Joshi, JJ.

Author: Vinay Joshi, J.

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1808,MANU/MH/3348/2019

Print Page

Whether marriage can be proved on basis of mobile phone call details?

The appellant has merely relied upon the copy of the
notice issued by him to the respondent to resume cohabitation.
To the said notice the respondent replied that no marriage had
ever taken place and hence there is no question of her resuming
the company of the petitioner. Thereafter, reliance was placed by
the appellant upon an application under the Right to Information
Act asking for mobile phone call details about calls allegedly
made by the respondent and the appellant to each other. Even if
call details show that they had made calls to each other, these call
details would not show that any marriage ever took place
between the parties. It is true that details of marriage ceremonies
is matter of evidence but at the same time petition should prima
facie disclose that some form of marriage took place between the
parties and there should be some prima facie evidence of
marriage in the form of marriage like marriage invitation card,

photographs of marriage, certificate of marriage or details as to
which persons were present in the marriage or details in relation
to marriage ceremonies. Annexing such documents to the petition
was necessary in this case because the respondent had in reply to
the notice of the appellant to resume his company specifically
denied that any marriage had ever taken place. As observed
12)
filed by the appellant.
earlier, all these details are conspicuously lacking in the petition
In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in
this appeal.
APPELLATE  SIDE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

FAMILY  COURT APPEAL No. 37  of  2014.
Mr Raj Amarsingh Gulale (Singhania)
Versus

Mrs Mansi Raj Gulale(Singhania)

CORAM :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND
A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED :- 29th September, 2014.
Citation; 2015(3) ALLMR365

Print Page

Whether call details can be held admissible in evidence without certificate as per S 65B of Evidence Act?

Qua the admissibility of the call details, it is a matter of
record that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to
prove on the basis of the printed copy of the computer generated call
details kept in usual ordinary course of business and stored in a
hard disc of the company server, to co-relate the calls made from
and to the cell phones involved including those, amongst others
recovered from the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to
adduce a certificate relatable thereto as required under Section
65B(4) of the Act. Though the High Court, in its impugned
judgment, while dwelling on this aspect, has dismissed the plea of
inadmissibility of such call details by observing that all the
stipulations contained under Section 65 of the Act had been
complied with, in the teeth of the decision of this Court in Anvar
P.V. (supra) ordaining an inflexible adherence to the enjoinments of
Sections 65B(2) and (4) of the Act, we are unable to sustain this
finding. As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the
secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details,
even assuming that the mandate of Section 65B(2) had been
complied with, in absence of a certificate under Section 65B(4), the
same has to be held inadmissible in evidence.
This Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) has held in no
uncertain terms that the evidence relating to electronic record being
a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under
Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Act would have to yield
thereto. It has been propounded that any electric record in the form
of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless the
requirements of Section 65B are satisfied. This conclusion of ours is
inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining to Sections 65A
and 65B of the Act as above.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2539 OF 2014

HARPAL SINGH @ CHHOTA  V  STATE OF PUNJAB

Bench: A.K. Sikri, Amitava Roy
Dated:NOVEMBER 21, 2016.
Citation:(2017) 1 SCC 734, 2017 CRLJ 551 SC

Print Page