JUDGMENT

Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - Petitioner herein is facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 376, 506, 509-B of the IPC and Sections 66(E) and 67(F) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which is pending consideration before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur wherein he filed an application on 27/07/2019 for providing copy of the seized CD (compact disk) and pen drive as well as copy of victim's statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. On the same day, learned trial Court passed the impugned order (Annexure A/1) and directed the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Thana, Bilaspur to provide the copy of the said seized CD and pen drive to the petitioner/accused, but declined to grant victim's statement to him recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on 26/08/2019, inability was expressed on behalf of the prosecution to provide the copy of the said CD and pen drive to the petitioner/accused on the ground that the said documents are confidential in nature against which the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner/accused.

2. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the CD and pen drive have been seized, therefore, he is entitled to get the copy of the said CD as well as the pen drive and it cannot be refused on the ground of confidentiality of the said documents as these articles would be a document for the purpose of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned State counsel would support the impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records annexed with the petition.

5. The question that arises for consideration herein is as to whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to get the copy of the seized CD and pen drive ?

6. The aforesaid question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the matter of P. Gopalkrishnan alias Dileep v. Stte of Kerala and Anr.,2019 SCCOnline(SC) 1532 wherein their Lordships framed the following question for determination :-

"The conundrum in this appeal is: whether the contents of a memory card/pen-drive being electronic record as predicated in Section 2(1)(t) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (for short, 'the 2000 Act') would, thereby qualify as a "document" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the 1872 Act') and Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the 1860 Code')? If so, whether it is obligatory to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of such memory card/pendrive to the accused facing prosecution for an alleged offence of rape and related offences since the same is appended to the police report submitted to the Magistrate and the prosecution proposes to rely upon it against the accused, in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Code')? The next question is: whether it is open to the Court to decline the request of the accused to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of the subject memory card/pen drive in the form of video footage/clipping concerning the alleged incident/occurrence of rape on the ground that it would impinge upon the privacy, dignity and identity of the victim involved in the stated offence(s) and moreso because of the possibility of misuse of such cloned copy by the accused (which may attract other independent offences under the 2000 Act and the 1860 Code)?"

7. The aforesaid issue was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court threadbare and thereafter, in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the judgment, it was held as under :-

"54. If the accused or his lawyer himself, additionally, intends to inspect the contents of the memory card/pen-drive in question, he can request the Magistrate to provide him inspection in Court, if necessary, even for more than once alongwith his lawyer and I.T. expert to enable him to effectively defend himself during the trial. If suc