A petition has been rejected by a court in New Delhi, Delhi, allowing an accused person to inspect two other co-accused digital equipment, saying that “efforts to conduct a parallel investigation” cannot be allowed.
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh had heard a case about corruption related to productive policy, where four persons, ie two co-accused, Sameer Mahendru and Arun R. Pillai, a witness and another person who belonged to a third party, allowed accused Amdeep Singh Dhal to inspect his digital equipment.
In an order on 2 August, the court said that although Dhal claimed that he would provide an undertaking that he would not present any argument against four persons after inspecting his equipment, his argument did not inspire confidence.
“The reason for the accused 9 inspects the equipment of other people, it is to find something that he can use to protect himself. If he is not planning to use any material from the devices, then why he needs to see them? The purpose of inspecting the equipment is to find the evidence that can be used to support their defense, which is a serious risk to be accused of being accused of 5, accused 7 and others.
If any decreased material is found in their equipment, appropriate action can be taken against them, it said.
The judge said, “This court can ignore any such material relevant to the trial when the accused was brought to the notice of this court by 9 or someone else, which the CBI may have ignored in its equipment? The answer should not be,” the judge said.
He said that it seems that the Dhal was “trying to conduct a parallel investigation or investigate that the CBI did not fully investigate or deliberately failed to gather all the evidences or deliberately ignored many things”.
The court said, “No such parallel investigation should be allowed by any accused, as it would have an endless cycle of such action. Finally, each accused in a criminal case claims that he was prevented by an inappropriate investigation about him and from the omission of facts, which could be in his favor,” the court said.
It said that in a criminal case, if an accused believes that some strong defense exists, it is most likely that where the piece of material was and what it would be.
“The courts have to be particularly cautious when digital devices with sensitive, private or personal data are examined. If some parts of such digital content are unrelated to the prosecution case, the person requesting inspection should clearly specify what is expected from the inspection. When such inspection is not considered a right, it can not be considered a right.”
“To request inspection without a specific or proper reason or just expect to find something useful, volume for a fishing campaign. Such a broad, unforese discovery without a clear limit or scope amount for a roving inquiry without the amount.
The court said that an accused had provided specific and solid relevance, before requesting inspection of a private or third-party data digital device.
“When the CBI investigated the case for a long time, the prima facials should be accepted that it completely examined all these digital devices,” the court said.
“Since the CBI finds nothing related to the dispute in those equipment, a parallel investigation will allow a separate test to each device, which can be extremely risky for a criminal court. Such pre-tackling investigation should not be allowed,” said this.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without amending the text.
