Advocate Pracha cannot be allowed to dictate terms of probe, say police
New Delhi: Advocate Mehmood Pracha cannot be allowed to dictate the terms of the investigation being carried out against him, the Delhi Police told a Delhi court on Monday in a case connected with the second raid conducted at the defence lawyer's office earlier this month by the Special Cell.
During the last hearing, the court headed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dr Pankaj Sharma had asked probe officers how they planned to retrieve the "target data" without creating any "evidentiary vulnerabilities" or any alteration of the data of other clients of Pracha.
In Friday's hearing, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad told the court: "There is an accused who is a lawyer... after this he can be a politician or a doctor... on what presumption do we come to the conclusion that the investigative agency is fishing for controversial information."
Prasad added, "By putting such questions to the investigating agency are we not prejudging and casting aspersions?... Don't we have any self respect?... Mereko kya lena dena unless there is material against him?..."
Referring to the arguments made by Pracha in the previous hearing that they (police) wanted to shoot him, SPP Prasad submitted, "What is the argument that vo mujhe goli marne vale hai? Has any bullet been fired? A narrative is being created… he said I should have been told politely (about the raid), we asked him politely only... his premises is locked, he says I'm not coming, I'm in court... you could have sent a person and come subsequently... you file an application that I will produce the data... are you going to dictate the terms of the investigation?."
On the retrieval of specific data from Pracha's computer's hard disk, Prasad told the court that "there are some things I can't disclose in open court... am I bound to disclose that there is evidence against him at every stage?... midway he wants evidence to be given to him, why would I do that?... That cannot be the way the investigation is going to happen... it is a completely independent procedure…"
SPP Prasad argued that protections under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act which pertain to the attorney-client privilege cannot be extended to section 93 of CrPC which deals with search warrants, while holding that such a classification is illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. After hearing the arguments, the court reserved the orders on the case on March 22.
After the second raid conducted by the Special Cell at his Nizamuddin office on March 9, Pracha, representing several victims of Delhi riots, had moved the court alleging that the whole exercise was "illegal" and "unjustified".
In his application, he had alleged that the sole objective of conducting the raid was to illegally steal the data of the cases he has been fighting and sought protection of the information under attorney-client privilege.
The raid at Pracha's office was carried out in connection with an investigation where he has been accused of allegedly tutoring a witness in a false case pertaining to the Delhi riots.
