JUDGMENT

K. Abraham Mathew, J.—(I) Is an accused entitled to get copy of an electronic record produced in the court by the prosecution as a material object?

(ii) Is the right of an accused to get copies of the documents produced by the prosecution absolute?

The court is called upon to answer these two questions.

2. The petitioner is the accused in a sessions case. He is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 201 and 302 IPC. The investigating officer produced a ‘tablet’ (computer) , two hard discs of computer, a pen drive and a compact disc, all of which allegedly contain visuals. The petitioner applied for their copies. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application. This is challenged.

3. Heard Sri Ravikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suman Chakravarthy, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The articles of which copies were applied for were produced by the investigating officer as material objects. The Sessions Judge took the view that if the petition is allowed and copy of the ‘hard disc’ is taken, there is every chance of the hash value being changed and it becomes easy for the accused to allege their contents being tampered. Fair trial can well be ensured “by allowing the petitioner and his pleader to inspect and verify the said items at the time of taking evidence”, the trial court held.

5. The contention of Sri Revikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the articles produced in the case are not material objects, but electronic records and the petitioner is entitled to their copies as provided in Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Sri Suman Chakravarthy, learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, maintains that the things produced in the court are not electronic records, but material objects and there is no statutory provision to issue copies of material objects.

6. Sub section 5 of section 173 of Cr.P.C. provides that the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with his report the following documents:—

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

(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution propose to examine as its witnesses.

7. Section 207 of the Code makes it mandatory for the court to furnish to the accused the following documents:—

(i) the police report;

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

(iii) the statements recorded under subsection (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 subsection (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.

8. The purpose behind Section 207 of the Code is to ensure fair trial. In Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has observed: “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 (read 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.”

9. In V.K.Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 it has been held in paragraph 17:—

“Though it is only such reports which support the prosecution case that required to be forwarded to the court under Section 173(5) in every situation where some of the seized papers and documents