Guman Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The applicant/accused has preferred this petition u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (For short "the Code"), being aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2012 passed by Special Judge, CBI Jabalpur in Special Case No. 13/2009, whereby his application filed u/s 207 of the Code for appropriate direction to the respondent/prosecution to provide him mirror copy of the electronic documents has been dismissed. The applicant''s counsel after taking us through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on record and the copy of the aforesaid application dated 31.10.2012 (Ann. A.2), argued that according to the charge sheet submitted by the prosecution the impugned case is based on number of computer/electronic documents, in such premises the prosecution was duty bound to supply the image copy of such electronic documents, but the same was not given to him. In this regard some prayer was also made to the Court, inspite that same has not been made available to the petitioner in last four years. In the lack of mirror copy of such electronic documents, being related with the computer or laptop and key board, he could not defend his case properly and in such premises his right to defend the case may be prejudiced and prayed for allowing the aforesaid application by setting aside the impugned order by admitting and allowing this petition. He also placed his reliance on a decision of the Single Bench of Delhi High Court in the matter of Dharmbir Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation delivered on 11th March, 2013. Copy of such judgment referred by the applicant''s counsel is taken on record. According to this copy such decision is reported in Dharambir Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,

Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view his arguments we have carefully gone through the petition along with annexed papers, so also the impugned order.

It is apparent from the papers placed on record that whatsoever documents on which the prosecution has relied on to prosecute the applicant, the copies of the same have been made available to the applicant along with the police report filed u/s 173 of the Code at the initial stage on filing the charge sheet. It is apparent that prosecution has not relied on any keyboard, computer, laptop or any hard-disc. Although according to charge sheet some computer generated copy of the documents have been placed along with the charge sheet and copies of the same have been supplied to the applicant. So, in such premises it is apparent that prosecution has not relied on any of such documents or instruments like hard disc etc. So, in such premises, this Court has to consider the question whether the applicant is entitled to get the electronic copies, mirror copies or the image copies of the documents on which the prosecution has not placed his reliance.

Before giving answer of aforesaid question we would like to reproduce the concerning part of Section 173 and 207 of the Code here in as ready reference. The same is read as under:

Report of police officer on completion of investigation.

(1)....

(2) (i)....

(a)....

(b)....

(c)....

(d)....

(e)....

(f)....

(g)....

(ii)....

(3)....

(4)....

(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report-

(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;

(b) the statements-recorded u/s 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.

Supply to the accused the 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.

In view of aforesaid existing provision of the Code on examining the case at hand, it is apparent that copies of the police report filed u/s 173 of the Code, copy of the FIR recorded u/s 154 of the Code, copy of interrogatory statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Code, so also the copies of the other relevant documents, on which the prosecution has placed its reliance and submitted before the Court have been supplied to the applicant at the time of filing the charge sheet. It is also apparent from the impugned order, annexed papers available on record and the averments of the petition that the prosecution has neither placed his reliance on any computer, keyboard, laptop or any hard disc nor stated the same in the list of documents or articles in the aforesaid police report of Section 173 of the Code. So, in such premises in compliance of the provision of Section 207 of the Code the prosecution was bound to supply only the copies of the documents as per requirement in the aforesaid sub-section 5 of Section 173 of the Code and the same have been supplied to the applicant by the prosecution. We have not found any papers on record to show that any such laptop, computer, keyboard or other such instruments either have been seized or sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to get examine and obtain the report. So, in such a situation when the prosecution itself has not relied on such articles or implements then mere on the request or the whims of the applicant contrary to the provisions of Section 173(5) and 207 of the Code the prosecution agency could not have been directed to supply the mirror copy, image copy or any such type of documents, which is not the part of the charge sheet and it''s record. So, in such premises we are of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and it does not require any interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court enumerated u/s 482 of the Code.

So far the case law in the matter of "Dharmbir" (Supra), decided by the Single Bench of Delhi High Court is concerned, it is suffice to say that in such case some hard disc along with CDs were seized and sent to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination to obtain its report, as the prosecution has either placed or wanted to place his reliance on such documents for prosecution of the concerning applicant/accused, which is not the situation in the case at hand, as stated above then in such distinguishable circumstances aforesaid cited case is not helping to the applicant. Even otherwise such decision of the Single Bench of Delhi High Court in the aforesaid available circumstances is not binding to the Division Bench of this Court. In view of the aforesaid, we have not found any error, illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of law in the impugned order, which requires any interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court enumerated u/s 482 of the Code. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.