Call Data Record (C.D.R.) not bearing signatures of any authorized officer---Complete---voice transcripts and audio of calls not produced---Effect---C.D.R. was produced in ............

 Call Data Record (C.D.R.) not bearing signatures of any authorized officer---Complete---voice transcripts and audio of calls not produced---Effect---C.D.R. was produced in evidence by a police official who, while appearing as witness, deposed that the investigating Officer ("1.0.") directed him to collect the C.D.R. of one of the petitioners (convict) from the Regional Police Officer's Office ("RPO Office"); that he, therefore, received the said data and delivered the same to the I.O. who took it into his custody vide a recovery memo---Careful examination of the said C.D.R. showed that it neither bore the name nor the signature of any authorized officer, nor did it carry the seal of the issuing company---Moreover, the police official acknowledged that the C.D.R. was not sealed and was not accompanied by any covering letter even from the RPO's office---Thus, it could not be safely relied upon in any manner---Neither were the relevant entries indicated in the data, nor were the voice record transcripts produced, which, if available, could have substantiated the point of the prosecution---Mere production of C.D.R., without transcripts of the calls or complete audio recordings, could not be deemed reliable evidence---In addition to call transcripts, it must also be established on record that the individuals at both ends of the call were the same as those whose call data was produced as evidence-- -Courts must exercise heightened caution when evaluating such evidence, as advancements in science and technology had greatly facilitated the editing and alteration of recordings to suit one's preferences---Being so, the C.D.R. in the present case was of no help to the prosecution in supporting its allegations against the petitioners---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals, and petitioner "A" was acquitted of the charge, whereas appeal of petitioner "L" (now deceased) abated to the extent of his life sentence, but was partially allowed to the extent of the sentence of forfeiture of his properties, with the direction that his properties, if any, confiscated under the impugned judgments shall be released forthwith in favor of his legal heirs.

PLD 2024 SC 1119