Ravindra Nath Tripathi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29/07/2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni, Distt. Balaghat in Sessions Trial No.81/2016 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Section 238 of Cr.P.C.

The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that before the Sessions Court, a sessions trial is pending for the offence under Sections 395, 353, 332, 147, 294 of IPC. Crime No.69/2015 has been registered in Police Station, Baraseoni and after investigation charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the applicant along with other co-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 353, 332, 147, 294 of IPC. Copy of the charge sheet along with documents filed with the charge sheet have been provided to each of the accused including the applicant. The applicant filed an application under Section 173(7) read with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and second application under Sections 220, 223(d) of the Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Baraseoni for directing the prosecution to provide the copy of x-ray film and copy of other digital documents filed along with charge sheet. Learned JMFC vide order dated 17/02/2016 has dismissed both the applications holding that copy of the documents filed along with the charge sheet have been provided to the applicant and committed the case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. to the Sessions Court for sessions trial where this case is being tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baraseoni, Distt. Balaghat registered as Sessions Trial No.81/2016. Before Sessions Court, the applicant again filed an application under Section 238 of Cr.P.C., Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 29/07/2017 has dismissed the application and advised the applicant that being an advocate to cooperate in progress of the sessions trial.

Being aggrieved by that order, the applicants have filed this revision on the ground that as per Sub-section (7) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C., learned trial Court ought to supply such documents to the accused/applicant which are material against him. Affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is necessary having evidenciary value. Contents of the electronic device are necessary. Pen drive has been supplied but electronic device has not been supplied by the Investigating Officer. It is necessary to know that what is the contents of that electronic device. Copy of x-ray film has not been provided and other documents mentioned in this revision have also not been provided, therefore, prayer is made by the applicant on two folds, firstly to direct the trial Court to supply copy of the documents filed along with charge sheet and secondly to expunge the remark given by trial Court.

Learned Government Advocate has opposed the revision and has submitted that the copy of whole documents filed along with charge sheet have already been provided to the applicant. The applicant unnecessarily obstructing the progress of the sessions trial, filed this revision on the false ground and prays for dismissal of this revision.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

Copy of the application filed under Section 238 of Cr.P.C. dated 25/05/2016 by the applicant before the Sessions Court in Sessions Trial is annexed along with this revision in which the applicant has mentioned the documents and requested to supply copies of that documents. Learned Sessions Court after considering the facts, has dismissed the application filed under Section 238 of Cr.P.C. Before going to discuss the issue raised in this revision, it is necessary to quote the provisions of Section 238 of Cr.P.C which reads as under :

"238. Compliance with section 207- When, in any warrant-case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of section 207.

Section 238 is embodied in Chapter-XIX which is for the trial of warrant cases by the Magistrate. The applicant is being tried by the Sessions Court. The provisions embodied for that is in Chapter-XVIII. In the cause title, it may be quoted wrong provisions. The main contention of the applicant is that he has not given a copy of the documents of x-ray film, copy of electronic documents. Prior to this, the applicant also requested to direct the prosecution to file electronic device from where the electronic documents have been prepared.

Considering all the prayers made by the applicant in this revision, this Court is of the view that the order passed by learned Sessions Court i.e. impugned herein dated 29/07/2017 is purely of an interlocutory order and it covers only procedural aspects as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. When the case is committed under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., it is expected from the learned Magistrate to make compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and after committal of the case if any other documents or additional documents file under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., the Sessions Court will supply the copy of the additional documents file during trial.

It is not expected from the Sessions Court to supply the documents to the applicant who is accused therein under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The documents have already been filed along with charge sheet. It is the committal Court to take care and to comply the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. before commitment of the case.

In this revision, the applicant has mentioned so many facts which are related to the merits of the case and defence of the case. The applicant is free to raise that defence during trial. The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order pertaining to the procedural aspect of the trial. In this respect this revision filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C is barred as provided under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.

This revision is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismmissed.