IMPORTANT POINT
The accused has no right to be heard or access documents during the protest petition hearing under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J:-

1. The present revisional application was preferred challenging the judgment and order dated February 16, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol in Criminal Motion no. 15 of 2022, wherein the learned revisional Court was pleased to affirm the order dated April 27, 2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman in connection with Kulti Police Station case no. 76/2019 dated March 15, 2019 (G.R. Case no. 558/2019).

2. Kulti Police station case no. 76/2019 dated March 15, 2019 was registered for investigation under Sections 354/354A/354B/354D/323/341/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code which after conclusion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby discharging the accused from the case. The learned CJM, Paschim Bardhaman on receipt of the report issued notice to the de facto complainant fixing date on 20.04.2022 for appearance.

3. Records reflect that on 02.03.2022 by way of put-up petition the opposite-party no.2/ de facto complainant filed an application accompanied by affidavit praying for supplying of all the documents to her which has been relied upon by the Investigating Officer of Kulti Police Station case no. 76/2019 to arrive at its conclusion. Learned Magistrate by its order dated 02.03.2022 allowed the prayer directing the investigating officer to supply the documents relied upon by him. The order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned CJM, Paschim Bardhaman reflects that the de facto complainant again filed a petition on affidavit praying for suppling copy of statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly a direction was passed to supply copy of the same to the de facto complainant. On 27.04.2022 the de facto complainant filed another petition on affidavit praying for further investigation of the case by engaging a superior officer attached to the Police Commissionerate except the previous investigating officer. The said order also reflects that two petitions were filed by the present petitioner/accused along with the prayer for suppling copy of the closure report together with the statement of the witnesses, report of Sexual Harassment Committee, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with CCTV footage and other documents and to give him an opportunity of hearing in the present case. The learned Magistrate in respect of the public documents opined that those which are public documents and if the accused/petitioner is entitled to get the same he may be supplied the same. However, the Court refused to consider the prayer for supplying of the copies so demanded and fixed the next date on 07.06.2022. The accused/petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the learned CJM, Paschim Bardhaman was pleased to prefer a revisional application being Criminal Motion No. 15/2022, the said revisional application after being admitted was decided on 16.02.2023 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol. The learned revisional Court after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, State and the Opposite Party arrived at its finding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Bardhaman was correct in not allowing the prayer to supply of copy of the closure report, statement of the witnesses, report of the Sexual Harassment Committee, statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. with CCTV Footages and other documents to the petitioner and consequently dismissed the Criminal Motion no. 15/2022.

4. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 16.02.2023 petitioner again preferred an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court. The main thrust of contention of Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is that if the de facto complainant is entitled to the copies of the documents relied upon by the invest