After Delhi-based lawyer Mehmood Pracha moved an application in Patiala House Court, seeking modification of an earlier order allowing for his computer to be seized by Delhi Police special cell, the court on 12 March continued the stay on the operation of the search warrant and asked the investigating officer to file responses to two queries by 19 March.
In its order, assessed by The Quint, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pankaj Sharma said that from the legal stand point, the said concern relating to protection of privilege communication has to be addressed. It says it is imperative that the court protect data and files relating to communication of clients with applicant (Pracha) stored in the hard disk, that the police wants access to.
Since the case is to only obtain ‘target data’ for a specific case, and ‘given the consent by the applicant for furnishing data through pendrive or through production of computer’, the court asked the prosecution how they propose to:
a) receive ‘target data’ of the pen drive without creating any evidential vulnerability
b) retrieve target data without any alteration to the meta data associated with the ‘target data’ to prevent further evidential vulnerabilities without disruption to files/data relating to other clients.
The IO has been asked to file a response by 19 March.
On 9 March Pracha had moved court with an application saying that he is willing to ‘concede to the allegations’ of drafting the complaint in question and sending it from his office, so the premise for the search warrant does not stand. Subsequently, on 10 March, the court ordered a stay on the operation of the search warrant and had reserved its order for the application for 12 March.
What Does Pracha’s Application From 9 March Entail?
The application filed by Pracha calls for a modification of the previous order that allowed a search warrant. It states that the investigating officials’ demand for the hard disk and computer is illegal and unjustified as the “specific documents are already in their possession from the previous raid (alleged search) itself.” Since they already have the documents they are after, the plea states that “the insistence on seizing the hard drive is evidently to collect information and data belonging to the clients of the application who include whistleblowers and anti-corruption activists”.
“Why do they want my hard disk? They want to know if I sent the e-mail or not, right? I am ready to confess that the complaint in question was drafted by me, was drafted on my system and by using my internet. If I do not do this, and they take my entire computer, then the life of so many other clients of mine will be under threat. How can I afford that?” Pracha said, adding that he is willing to furnish any specific document sought, and refurnish what has already been taken from the last raid of 24 December.
In the plea, Pracha states that he is willing to concede to the allegation levelled against him. “...the applicant, being an advocate, is willing to concede to the allegations as to drafting of the complaint and its subsequent sending from his office, so that the basic premise for search and the seizure being sought does not stand any longer,” the application reads.
This allegation stems from another case registered against Pracha.
What is This Case About?
In a press note issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police from Delhi Police Special Cell Manishi Chandra after the first raid, details of the searches conducted at advocate Mehmood Pracha’s office were revealed. The allegation against Pracha under FIR 212/2020 dated 22 August is regarding him creating a concocted/fabricated complaint for a victim of the northeast Delhi riots.
The victim is called Irshad Ali, who was allegedly made to depose falsely in front of the court. “These findings were supported by the witnesses of this case who had recorded their testimonies under Section 164 of CrPC before the concerned Hon’ble Courts,” the report read.
Ali, whose shop was allegedly burnt and looted during the northeast Delhi riots, told the court that he could not identify the accused named in his complaint as he did not know who the people were. This happened in August 2020, after which the additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav directed the police to investigate the allegations, pass appropriate directions, and requested the Delhi Commissioner of Police to look into the matter.
In the police report from August 2020, the police had explained that, "During the investigation, he (Ali) was enquired about the names of Deepak, Navneet, and Mintu, as mentioned in his complaint. He said that he knows them by their names and does not know anything about them personally. He also stated that he does not identify the accused persons in the video."
PTI reported how the police report included Ali’s brother, Dilshad's statement as well. Dilshad had said they both were home when they got the call about the shop being looted and hence had not seen anyone looting their shop, contrary to the complaint submitted in his brother’s name.
Pracha says he is willing to risk self implication to protect the interest of other clients, “They want my computer, which I am not willing to give. Giving the entire computer will compromise the information of other clients whose life could be at stake. That is why, today I am making an offer and risking self implication in this matter by accepting that the statement in question was prepared at my office, using my computer, and sent using my office computer. I am willing to accept that to protect the interest of other clients which will be exposed if my computer is seized.”
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)