Sri Pradeep vs State of Karnataka and Central Crime Branch

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to make a copy of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage recorded in the office of the City Crime Branch, Bashyam Circle, Bangalore, at the intervening time between 24.10.2013 at 6.00 p.m. and 25.10.2013 at 11.00 p.m. and to keep the original of the record with the Hon''ble VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The case of the petitioner is that in respect of certain incidents said to have been taken place on the night of 24.0.2013 and 25.10.2013, the criminal proceedings is being initiated. Allegation is made that the Respondent No. 3 is expecting certain illegal gratifications, in that regard the Respondent-Police are also harassing Mr. Rohith by trying to extort him. It is in that regard as the petitioner would be entitled to put forth an appropriate defence, the petitioner is seeking for preservation of the CCTV footage recorded in the City Crime Branch, Bashyam Circle, as the petitioner alleges that the petitioner and the others are being implicated in the offence registered in FIR No. 309/2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai Jamnadas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, .

Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents on instructions would submit that first and foremost that such recording in the City Crime Branch is not available, even otherwise, it is pointed out that the petitioner himself is the second accused in the proceedings and Rohith is the fifth accused. In that view, it is contended that the petitioner before seeking for issue of mandamus has not pointed out that he has right as well as the duty is cast on the Respondents nor has any demand been made from the respondent and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed In the light of the contentions in so far as the reliance placed on the judgment, I am of the opinion that the same would not be of any assistance to the instant facts in as much as in the said proceedings, the Hon''ble Supreme Court while considering the case of defective investigation and in that process, when it would be permissible for the Court to monitor and issue directions for the purpose of appropriate investigation to be conducted is enunciated. Even if that aspect of the matter is kept in view, keeping in perspective the nature of pleadings put forth in the instant petition, the petitioner has not made out an appropriate case seeking for the issue of mandamus. The very manner in which the petition averments have been made appears to be that the petitioner is only seeking to fish for certain evidence, which he may use for defence. In such circumstance, when in the instant facts, there is a general assertion and a vague averments made by the petitioner, a writ of the present nature would not be issued. In that view, I am of the opinion that the prayer as made in the instant petition is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition is without merit, the same is accordingly disposed of.