# Varun v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 463
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-19
- **Case number:** Appl. U/s 482 No. 75009 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/varun-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-47839
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 302 & 307 - The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section
482 - Inherent power - Section 207 -
Supply to the accused of copy of police
report and other documents - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B -
Admissibility of electronic records -
contents of the memory card/pendrive being electronic record must be
regarded as a document - If the
prosecution is relying on the same,
ordinarily, the accused must be given a
cloned copy thereof to enable him/her
to present an effective defence during
the trial.(Para - 14)

Application under Sections 231(2), 207
Cr.P.C. - rejected - trial court denied
applicant the copy of C.D. - ground -
process of cloning may lead to deletion of
data or may also lead to tempering with the
same - hence application. (Para - 16)
HELD:-C.D. is also an electronic document.
Copy to be supplied to the accused under
Section 207 Cr.P.C. . Supply of any such
electronic document could be denied only in the
exceptional case. Impugned order declining the
supply of copy of CD to the applicant is not
sustainable and deserves to be quashed to that
extent only. (Para - 15,18)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

11 All. Varun Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
463

60. The petitioner is granted time till
21.11.2022 to appear before the trial court
and apply for regular bail. In case the
petitioner appears and applies for regular
bail, his bail application shall be considered
expeditiously in accordance with law.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 463
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Appl. U/s 482 No. 75009 of 2022

Varun ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Shailendra Singh Rajawat, Akash Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 302 & 307 - The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section
482 - Inherent power - Section 207 -
Supply to the accused of copy of police
report and other documents - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B -
Admissibility of electronic records -
contents of the memory card/pendrive being electronic record must be
regarded as a document - If the
prosecution is relying on the same,
ordinarily, the accused must be given a
cloned copy thereof to enable him/her
to present an effective defence during
the trial.(Para - 14)

Application under Sections 231(2), 207
Cr.P.C. - rejected - trial court denied
applicant the copy of C.D. - ground -
process of cloning may lead to deletion of
data or may also lead to tempering with the
same - hence application. (Para - 16)
HELD:-C.D. is also an electronic document.
Copy to be supplied to the accused under
Section 207 Cr.P.C. . Supply of any such
electronic document could be denied only in the
exceptional case. Impugned order declining the
supply of copy of CD to the applicant is not
sustainable and deserves to be quashed to that
extent only. (Para - 15,18)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs St. of Kerala &
anr. , (2020) 9 SCC 161 rejected

2. Sadhvi Ritumbhara Vs St. of M.P., 1996 SCC
OnLine MP 261

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I)

1. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh
Rajawat, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh along with Sri
Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the entire record.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant for challenging the impugned
order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court
No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri rejecting the
application submitted by the applicant
under Sections 231(2), 207 Cr.P.C. in
Special Sessions Trial No.164 of 2019
arising out of Case Crime No.705 of 2018,
under Sections 307, 302 I.P.C., Police
Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur
Kheri.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the C.D. regarding
alleged information given by the first
informant to the Investigating Officer, Ex.
SA-2 is not admissible in evidence as no
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certificate as required by Section 65B(4) of
Indian Evidence Act has been furnished.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has further submitted that the object behind
incorporation of Section 207 Cr.P.C. is to
enable the accused to defend himself
properly and it is achieved only by
supplying of vital documents like police
report, statements of witnesses during
investigation, confession etc. to the accused
so that he may have notice of the charge, he
is to meet and cross-examining the
witnesses.

5. His next submission is that the idea
behind supply of copies to the accused is,
thus, to put him to a notice of what he has
to meet at the inquiry or trial.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also submitted that the documents in
terms of Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. are
supplied to make the accused aware of the
materials which are sought to be utilized
against him. The object is to enable the
accused to defend himself properly.

7. His further submission is that "any
other document" mentioned in clause (v) of
the Section 207 Cr.P.C. includes electronic
document such as C.D./ pen drive etc.
which, in the instant case, learned trial
court did not supply to the present applicant
causing failure of justice to him. The
learned Magistrate is duty bound to furnish
such document to the applicant under
Section 207 Cr.P.C. without any delay.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has
concluded
his
submission
by
submitting that the learned trial court below
has erred in not supplying copy of C.D.
without any just cause, which has caused
failure of justice to the applicant. The
applicant will not be able to defend himself
properly and it would, thus, amount to
denial of his right to defend properly.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. have
vehemently the opposed the prayer by
submitting that the learned trial court has
rightly refused supply of CD. The accused/
applicant has knowledge of this fact and,
therefore, it cannot be said that his right to
defend himself properly is defeated in any
manner
by
non-supplying
of
such
electronic document.

10. His further submission is that it is
a deliberate move on the part of present
applicant
to
delay
the
proceeding.
Therefore, no interference by this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is required at this stage.

11. Having heard the learned counsel
for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and upon perusal of record, it appears
that the first information report bearing
No.0705 of 2018, under Section 307 I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Mohammadi,
District
Lakhimpur Kheri came to be lodged
against the present applicant. The applicant
was
named
in
the
aforesaid
first
information report. Upon conclusion of
investigation, a charge sheet came to be
filed against the the present applicant for
the offences under Sections 307 and 302
I.P.C. Thereafter, it appears that an
application dated 03.09.2022 came to be
moved by the accused/ applicant under
Section 231(2) read with Section 207
Cr.P.C. whereby the main prayer of the
applicant was to provide him cloned copy
of C.D. which, according to statement of
Inspector Ram Singh Yadav PW-7, was
recorded in the mobile phone by this
witness
when
the
injured/
deceased
informed him that he was shot by the
11 All. Varun Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
465
accused persons. This application came to
be rejected vide impugned order dated
09.09.2022
passed
by
the
learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge/
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.11,
Lakhimpur Kheri, on the ground that the
copies of prosecution papers under Section
207 Cr.P.C. came to be supplied to the
accused persons on 28.03.2019. This fact
finds mentioned in the order sheet dated
28.03.2019. The case pertains to the year
2018 and is old. The C.D. has been kept in
a sealed cover and has been exhibited as
Ex. Ka-SA2. The learned trial court has
refused to give its copy on the ground that
If it is cloned, the data may get deleted and
may also be tempered with causing
disappearance
of
important
evidence.
Therefore, the learned trial court rejected
the application dated 03.09.2022.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
P. Gopalkrishnan alias Dileep vs. State
of Kerala and another reported in
(2020) 9 SCC 161 in paras-17, 18, 21,
26, 30, 38 and 47 has held as under:-

"17. On receipt of the police report
and the accompanying statements and
documents by virtue of Section 207 of
the 1973 Code, the Magistrate is then
obliged to furnish copies of each of the
statements
and
documents
to
the
accused. Section 207 reads thus:

"207. Supply to the accused of
copy
of
police
report
and
other
documents.--In any case where the
proceeding has been instituted on a
police report, the Magistrate shall
without delay furnish to the accused,
free of cost, a copy of each of the
following--

(i) the police report;

(ii) the first information report
recorded under Section 154;

(iii) the statements recorded under
sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all
persons whom the prosecution proposes to
examine
as
its
witnesses,
excluding
therefrom any part in regard to which a
request for such exclusion has been made
by the police officer under sub-section (6)
of Section 173;

(iv) the confessions and statements, if
any, recorded under Section 164;

(v) any other document or relevant
extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate
with the police report under sub-section (5)
of Section 173:

Provided that the Magistrate may,
after perusing any such part of a statement
as is referred to in clause (iii) and
considering the reasons given by the police
officer for the request, direct that a copy of
that part of the statement or of such portion
thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper,
shall be furnished to the accused:

Provided further that if the Magistrate
is satisfied that any document referred to in
clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead
of furnishing the accused with a copy
thereof, direct that he will only be allowed
to inspect it either personally or through
pleader in Court."

As regards the statements, the first
proviso enables the Magistrate to withhold
any part thereof referred to in clause (iii),
from the accused on being satisfied with the
note and the reasons specified by the
investigating officer as predicated in subsection (6) of Section 173. However, when
it comes to furnishing of documents
submitted by the investigating officer along
with police report, the Magistrate can
withhold only such document referred to in
clause (v), which in his opinion, is
"voluminous". In that case, the accused can
be permitted to take inspection of the
document concerned either personally or
through his pleader in Court. In other
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
words, Section 207 of the 1973 Code does
not empower the Magistrate to withhold
any
"document"
submitted
by
the
investigating officer along with the police
report except when it is voluminous. A
fortiori, it necessarily follows that even if
the investigating officer appends his note in
respect of any particular document, that
will be of no avail as his power is limited to
do so only in respect of "statements"
referred to in sub-section (6) of Section 173
of the 1973 Code.

18. Be that as it may, the Magistrate's
duty under Section 207 at this stage is in
the nature of administrative work, whereby
he is required to ensure full compliance of
the section. We may usefully advert to the
dictum in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
[Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3
SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] wherein it
was held that : (SCC p. 123, para 47)

"47. Since after the filing of the
charge-sheet, the court reaches the stage of
inquiry and as soon as the court frames the
charges,
the
trial
commences,
and
therefore, the power under Section 319(1)
CrPC can be exercised at any time after the
charge-sheet is filed and before the
pronouncement of judgment, except during
the stage of Sections 207/208 CrPC,
committal, etc. which is only a pre-trial
stage, intended to put the process into
motion. This stage cannot be said to be a
judicial step in the true sense for it only
requires an application of mind rather than
a judicial application of mind. At this pretrial stage, the Magistrate is required to
perform acts in the nature of administrative
work rather than judicial such as ensuring
compliance with Sections 207 and 208
CrPC, and committing the matter if it is
exclusively triable by the Sessions Court."

 (emphasis supplied)

21. Be that as it may, furnishing of
documents to the accused under Section
207 of the 1973 Code is a facet of right of
the accused to a fair trial enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution. In Manu
Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Manu
Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6
SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] , this
Court expounded thus : (SCC pp. 85-86,
paras 218-21)

"218. The liberty of an accused cannot
be interfered with except under due process
of law. The expression "due process of law"
shall deem to include fairness in trial. The
court (sic Code) gives a right to the
accused to receive all documents and
statements as well as to move an
application for production of any record or
witness in support of his case. This
constitutional mandate and statutory rights
given to the accused place an implied
obligation
upon
the
prosecution
(prosecution and the Prosecutor) to make
fair disclosure. The concept of fair
disclosure
would
take
in
its
ambit
furnishing of a document which the
prosecution relies upon whether filed in
court or not. That document should
essentially be furnished to the accused and
even
in
the
cases
where
during
investigation a document is bona fide
obtained by the investigating agency and in
the opinion of the Prosecutor is relevant
and would help in arriving at the truth, that
document should also be disclosed to the
accused.

219. The role and obligation of the
Prosecutor particularly in relation to
disclosure cannot be equated under our law
to that prevalent under the English system
as aforereferred to. But at the same time,
the demand for a fair trial cannot be
ignored.
It
may
be
of
different
consequences where a document which has
been obtained suspiciously, fraudulently or
by causing undue advantage to the accused
during investigation such document could
11 All. Varun Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
467
be denied in the discretion of the
Prosecutor to the accused whether the
prosecution relies or not upon such
documents, however in other cases the
obligation to disclose would be more
certain. As already noticed the provisions
of Section 207 have a material bearing on
this subject and make an interesting
reading. This provision not only require or
mandate that the court without delay and
free of cost should furnish to the accused
copies of the police report, first information
report, statements, confessional statements
of the persons recorded under Section 161
whom the prosecution wishes to examine as
witnesses, of course, excluding any part of
a statement or document as contemplated
under Section 173(6) of the Code, any
other document or relevant extract thereof
which has been submitted to the Magistrate
by the police under sub-section (5) of
Section 173. In contradistinction to the
provisions of Section 173, where the
legislature
has
used
the
expression
'documents on which the prosecution relies'
are not used under Section 207 of the Code.
Therefore, the provisions of Section 207 of
the Code will have to be given liberal and
relevant meaning so as to achieve its
object. Not only this, the documents
submitted to the Magistrate along with the
report under Section 173(5) would deem to
include the documents which have to be
sent to the Magistrate during the course of
investigation as per the requirement of
Section 170(2) of the Code.

220. The right of the accused with
regard to disclosure of documents is a
limited right but is codified and is the very
foundation of a fair investigation and trial.
On such matters, the accused cannot claim
an indefeasible legal right to claim every
document of the police file or even the
portions which are permitted to be
excluded from the documents annexed to
the report under Section 173(2) as per
orders of the court. But certain rights of the
accused flow both from the codified law as
well as from equitable concepts of the
constitutional jurisdiction, as substantial
variation to such procedure would frustrate
the very basis of a fair trial. To claim
documents within the purview of scope of
Sections 207, 243 read with the provisions
of Section 173 in its entirety and power of
the court under Section 91 of the Code to
summon documents signifies and provides
precepts which will govern the right of the
accused to claim copies of the statement
and documents which the prosecution has
collected during investigation and upon
which they rely.

221. It will be difficult for the court to
say that the accused has no right to claim
copies of the documents or request the
court for production of a document which
is part of the general diary subject to
satisfying the basic ingredients of law
stated therein. A document which has been
obtained bona fide and has bearing on the
case of the prosecution and in the opinion
of the Public Prosecutor, the same should
be disclosed to the accused in the interest
of justice and fair investigation and trial
should be furnished to the accused. Then
that document should be disclosed to the
accused giving him chance of fair defence,
particularly
when
non-production
or
disclosure of such a document would affect
administration of criminal justice and the
defence of the accused prejudicially."

(emphasis supplied)

26. It can be safely deduced from the
aforementioned expositions that the basis
of classifying article as a "document"
depends upon the information which is
inscribed and not on where it is inscribed.
It may be useful to advert to the exposition
of this Court holding that tape records of
speeches [Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329 : (2010)
2 SCC (Civ) 112 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 826]
and
audio/video
cassettes
[Ziyauddin
Burhanuddin
Bukhari
v.
Brijmohan
Ramdass Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17]
including compact disc [Shamsher Singh
Verma v. State of Haryana, (2016) 15 SCC
485 : (2016) 4 SCC (Cri) 683] were
"documents" under Section 3 of the 1872
Act, which stand on no different footing
than photographs and are held admissible
in evidence. It is by now well established
that the electronic record produced for the
inspection of the court is documentary
evidence under Section 3 of the 1872 Act
[Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC
473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1
SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] .

30.
Having
noticed
the
above
definitions, we may now turn to definitions
of expressions "document" and "evidence"
in Section 3 of the 1872 Act being the
interpretation clause. The same reads thus:

"3. Interpretation clause.--* * *

"Document".--"Document"
means
any matter expressed or described upon
any substance by means of letters, figures
or marks, or by more than one of those
means, intended to be used, or which may
be used, for the purpose of recording that
matter.

Illustrations

A writing is a document;

Words
printed,
lithographed
or
photographed are documents;

A map or plan is a document;

An inscription on a metal plate or
stone is a document;

A caricature is a document.

"Evidence".--"Evidence"
means
and includes--

(1) all statements which the court
permits or requires to be made before it
by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact
under inquiry;

such
statements
are
called
oral
evidence;

(2) all documents including electronic
records produced for the inspection of the
court,

such
documents
are
called
documentary evidence."

On a bare reading of the definition of
"evidence", it clearly takes within its fold
documentary evidence to mean and include
all documents including electronic records
produced for the inspection of the court.
Although, we need not dilate on the
question of admissibility of the contents of
the memory card/pen-drive, the same will
have to be answered on the basis of Section
65-B of the 1872 Act. The same reads thus:

"65-B. Admissibility of electronic
records.--(1)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in this Act, any information
contained in an electronic record which is
printed on a paper, stored, recorded or
copied in optical or magnetic media
produced by a computer (hereinafter
referred to as the computer output) shall be
deemed to be also a document, if the
conditions mentioned in this section are
satisfied in relation to the information and
computer
in
question
and
shall
be
admissible in any proceedings, without
further proof or production of the original,
as evidence of any contents of the original
or of any fact stated therein of which direct
evidence would be admissible.

(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) in respect of a computer output
shall be the following, namely--

(a) the computer output containing the
information was produced by the computer
during the period over which the computer
was used regularly to store or process
information for the purposes of any
activities regularly carried on over that
period by the person having lawful control
over the use of the computer;
11 All. Varun Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
469

(b) during the said period, information
of the kind contained in the electronic
record or of the kind from which the
information so contained is derived was
regularly fed into the computer in the
ordinary course of the said activities;

(c) throughout the material part of
the said period, the computer was
operating properly or, if not, then in
respect of any period in which it was not
operating
properly
or
was
out
of
operation during that part of the period,
was not such as to affect the electronic
record or the accuracy of its contents;
and

(d) the information contained in the
electronic record reproduces or is derived
from such information fed into the
computer in the ordinary course of the
said activities.

(3) Where over any period, the
function
of
storing
or
processing
information for the purposes of any
activities regularly carried on over that
period as mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2) was regularly performed by
computers, whether--

(a) by a combination of computers
operating over that period; or

(b) by different computers operating
in succession over that period; or

(c) by different combinations of
computers operating in succession over
that period; or

(d) in any other manner involving
the successive operation over that period,
in whatever order, of one or more
computers and one or more combinations
of computers,

all the computers used for that
purpose during that period shall be
treated for the purposes of this section as
constituting a single computer; and
references in this section to a computer
shall be construed accordingly.

(4) In any proceedings where it is
desired to give a statement in evidence by
virtue of this section, a certificate doing
any of the following things, that is to say--

(a) identifying the electronic record
containing the statement and describing the
manner in which it was produced;

(b) giving such particulars of any
device involved in the production of that
electronic record as may be appropriate for
the purpose of showing that the electronic
record was produced by a computer;

(c) dealing with any of the matters to
which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) relate,

and purporting to be signed by a
person occupying a responsible official
position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device or the management of the
relevant
activities
(whichever
is
appropriate) shall be evidence of any
matter stated in the certificate; and for the
purposes of this sub-section it shall be
sufficient for a matter to be stated to the
best of the knowledge and belief of the
person stating it

(5) For the purposes of this section-

(a) information shall be taken to be
supplied to a computer if it is supplied
thereto in any appropriate form and
whether it is so supplied directly or (with or
without human intervention) by means of
any appropriate equipment;

(b) whether in the course of activities
carried on by any official, information is
supplied with a view to its being stored or
processed for the purposes of those
activities by a computer operated otherwise
than in the course of those activities, that
information, if duly supplied to that
computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it
in the course of those activities;

(c) a computer output shall be taken to
have been produced by a computer whether
it was produced by it directly or (with or
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
without human intervention) by means of
any appropriate equipment.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this
section any reference to information being
derived from other information shall be a
reference to its being derived therefrom by
calculation, comparison or any other
process."

This provision is reiteration of the
legal
position
that
any
information
contained in an electronic record which is
printed on a paper, stored, recorded or
copied in optical or magnetic media
produced by a computer shall be deemed to
be a "document" and shall be admissible in
evidence
subject
to
satisfying
other
requirements of the said provision.

38. It is crystal clear that all
documents including "electronic record"
produced for the inspection of the court
along with the police report and which
prosecution proposes to use against the
accused must be furnished to the accused
as per the mandate of Section 207 of the
1973 Code. The concomitant is that the
contents of the memory card/pen-drive must
be furnished to the accused, which can be
done in the form of cloned copy of the
memory card/pen-drive. It is cardinal that a
person tried for such a serious offence
should be furnished with all the material
and evidence in advance, on which the
prosecution proposes to rely against him
during the trial. Any other view would not
only impinge upon the statutory mandate
contained in the 1973 Code, but also the
right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined
in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
47. We are conscious of the fact that
Section 207 of the 1973 Code permits
withholding
of
document(s)
by
the
Magistrate only if it is voluminous and for
no other reason. If it is an "electronic
record", certainly the ground predicated in
the second proviso in Section 207, of being
voluminous, ordinarily, cannot be invoked
and will be unavailable. We are also
conscious of the dictum in Supt. &
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Satyen
Bhowmick [Supt. & Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs v. Satyen Bhowmick, (1981) 2
SCC 109 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 342] , wherein
this Court has restated the cardinal
principle that the accused is entitled to
have
copies
of
the
statements
and
documents accompanying the police report,
which the prosecution may use against him
during the trial."

13. Adverting to the facts of this case,
admittedly, the CD in which alleged
statement of injured/ deceased is contained
in the form of Ex. SA-2 stands exhibited
during the course of evidence. So far as the
contention that the said C.D. is not
admissible
in
evidence
because
no
certificate as required by Section 65B(4) of
Indian Evidence Act is appended is
concerned, the same can be seen and
adjudicated by the learned court below
itself at appropriate stage.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
para-50 of P. Gopalkrishnan's case
(supra), has held as under:-

"50. In conclusion, we hold that the
contents of the memory card/pen-drive
being electronic record must be regarded
as a document. If the prosecution is
relying on the same, ordinarily, the
accused must be given a cloned copy
thereof to enable him/her to present an
effective
defence
during
the
trial.
However, in cases involving issues such as
of privacy of the complainant/witness or
his/her identity, the Court may be justified
in providing only inspection thereof to the
accused and his/her lawyer or expert for
presenting effective defence during the
11 All. Roshan Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
471
trial. The court may issue suitable
directions to balance the interests of both
sides." (emphasis supplied)

15. Therefore, in view of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.
Gopalkrishnan's case (supra), it is clear that
a C.D. is also an electronic document.
Therefore, a copy of the same ought to be
supplied to the accused under Section 207
Cr.P.C. The supply of any such electronic
document could be denied only in the
exceptional case specified in para-50 of P.
Gopalkrishnan's case (supra) itself.

16. It appears that the learned trial court
has denied the applicant the copy of C.D. on
the ground that the process of cloning may
lead to deletion of data or may also lead to
tempering
with
the
same
which
is
hypothetical
and
without
any
basis.
Therefore, the same cannot be sustained
particularly keeping in view the fact that the
object behind incorporation of Section 207
Cr.P.C. is to enable the accused to defend
himself properly which is achieved by
supplying of vital documents only

17. In Sadhvi Ritumbhara v. State of
M.P., 1996 SCC OnLine MP 261, High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, while deciding a
criminal revision has held that a copy of
alleged audio/video cassettes containing
alleged objectionable speech is necessary to
be given to accused.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed
by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court
No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri, insofar as it
declines the supply of copy of CD to the
applicant is not sustainable and deserves to be
quashed to that extent only.

19. Accordingly, the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.

20. The learned trial court is directed
to dispose of the application dated
03.09.2022 afresh by passing a reasoned
and speaking order in strict accordance
with law expeditiously particularly keeping
in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan's case
(supra).
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 471
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Appl. U/s 482 No. 8379 of 2017

Roshan Lal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Deepak Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Prabhat Kumar, Vimal Shukla

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323, 504 & 506 - The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482
-
Inherent
power
-
Section
200
-
Examination of complainant , Section 202
- Postponement of issue of process ,
Section 204 - Issue of process , The
Limitation
Act
1963
-
Section
5
-
condonation of delay , provision 131 of the
Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963 - period
of ninety days is the limitation for filing of
any revision under the Criminal Procedure
Code wherein the decree or order or
sentence is sought to be revised - if a
statute provides a specific mode or action