ORDER :

1. On due consideration, office objection raised by the Registry regarding maintainability of the petition is overruled and with the consent of counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.

2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash and set aside the material piece of evidence marked as Article ‘K’ and Article ‘L’ while recording the statement of PW-4 namely Chandrashekhar Rathore in CBI Case No.3/2016 pending before Special Judge for CBI Cases, Raipur in between (CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar Koshle and one another).

3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, is that in pursuance of the trap proceedings, the team of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”), while taking action on the complaint made by the complainant, caught petitioner No.1 – Shravan Kumar Bareth red handed at his residential premises on 05.07.2016 and recovered bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- from his possession. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 in order to prove his claim that he had accepted the bribe on behalf of petitioner No.2 – Ramesh Kumar Koshle, voluntarily agreed to make a phone call to him and also agreed to deliver the bribe to him. The conversation between them was recorded through digital voice recorder (DVR) and stored in Micro SD Card and the same was produced during the recording of evidence of PW-4 namely Chandrashekhar Rathore in paragraph 43 and 44 and marked as Article ‘K’ and Article ‘L’. However, during recording of the evidence of PW-4, no objection was raised by the petitioners about the admissibility of the said piece of evidence and no point has been raised. Now the same is challenged in this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that trial Court by exhibiting the Micro SD Card which stores the call recording as Article K and Article L is violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India as the Constitution provides immunity to an accused against self incrimination and no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. He would further submits that implantation of DVR and compelling the accused to trap another accused, thereafter, using such material is not permissible under ethos of the constitutional sprit. Further, the trial Court has wrongly exhibited the aforesaid inadmissible piece of evidence by assuming that it may be used against the petitioners which is also violative in light of the various decisions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would place reliance in the celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Selvi and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 7 SCC 263 and draws attention of this Court to paragraph 89 and 90. He would further place reliance in the matter of Munikrishna @ Krishna Vs. State of Ulssor PS reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1449 and would submit that in the said case the principle was laid down that an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. In the said case the observation was also made about the illegality committed by the trial Court while exhibiting the DVD statement. He finally submits that considering the aforesaid aspects, this writ petition may be allowed and further prays to quash the piece of evidence i.e. Article ‘K’ and Article ‘L’ which have been marked in the statement of PW-4 Chandrashekhar Rathore.

5. On the other hand, Shri Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the petitioners have filed this writ petition at premature stage as it is settled principle that in criminal trial, evidence cannot be read in isolation and the same cannot be judged at premature stage at the time of recording of evidence. He would further submit that mere marking of Article ‘K’ and Article ‘L’ (Micro SD Cards) does not violate Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India and by marking of such evidence, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners as the