Delhi Court Dismisses Mehmood Pracha's Revision Against Trial Court Order on His Plea for Raid Footage As Not Maintainable
story
A Delhi Court has dismissed as not maintainable the Delhi riots lawyer Mehmood Pracha's revision petition against an order of the Trial Court which had which ordered for the video footage of the raid on his office to be preserved, but made no directions on his demand for a copy of the raid footage.Rejecting the revision, the Additional Sessions Judge has held that under Section 165(5) CrPC,...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
A Delhi Court has dismissed as not maintainable the Delhi riots lawyer Mehmood Pracha's revision petition against an order of the Trial Court which had which ordered for the video footage of the raid on his office to be preserved, but made no directions on his demand for a copy of the raid footage.
Rejecting the revision, the Additional Sessions Judge has held that under Section 165(5) CrPC, the video footage has to be sent to the Magistrate "forthwith", however, it does not have to be provided to the "owner" or "occupier" of the place forthwith.
The court further held that the challenged order has "not disposed off" Pracha's plea for a copy of the video footage, and merely ordered for the footage to be preserved. Therefore, the court held that the order was interlocutory in nature, and as per settled principles of law, a revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable.
Having been preferred against what the court has held to be an interlocutory order, the court has held that Pracha's revision against the Trial Court's order is legally not maintainable.
The operative portion of order of the Trial Court, which the Additional Sessions Judge has upheld, reads as follows: "The Ld. Trial Court has specifically observed that "The applicant raises query as to the duration of video footage and has also requested for supply of the video footage to him. It is imperative to note that the video footage, which is the bone of contention, was recorded to ensure fairness while the search was being made as per the order dt. 22.12.2020 passed by the Ld. CMM,PHC, ND. At this stage, only directions for preserving the video footage is deemed necessary. The concerned court can take a call on supplying the video footage to the applicant at an appropriate stage".
On 25.12.2020, Pracha had moved an application before the Trial Court under Section 165(5) of CrPC, demanding a copy of the raid footage to be supplied to him. The Duty Magistrate vide order dated 27.12.2020 had directed that the video footage of the search be preserved but allowed Pracha's application only to the extent of providing him with a copy of the report of the search prepared by the police but did not allow him copies of the video footage. Pracha moved the Additional Sessions' Judge against this order.
[Read Order]