ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC, Raigarh in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2022 whereby an application moved by the petitioners/accused under Sections 207 and 208 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners are being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 459, 376, and 511 read with Section 34 of IPC pertaining to the FIR No. 329 of 2022 registered at Police Station Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh.

3. From a perusal of the charge sheet, it is apparent that article No. 19 is a 16GB pen drive containing the CCTV footage of 14.06.2022 from 8:51 am to 2:30 pm installed at house of one Naresh Patel, article No. 15 is a 32GB pen drive of SanDisk company containing videograph statements of witnesses recorded on 17.06.2022 and article No. 22 is a CD containing videograph statements of witnesses which were submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh along with the charge-sheet.

4. The learned Trial Court framed charges and thereafter the case has been fixed for recording evidence of the witnesses. The petitioners moved an application under Sections 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. for supply of the articles No. 19, 15 and 22 as these articles were not supplied to the petitioners along with the charge-sheet. The learned Trial Court vide Order dated 25.09.2023 rejected the application on the ground that no objection was taken when charge-sheet was supplied to the petitioners and no application was moved at an appropriate stage.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the concerned Magistrate is under obligation to supply the statements recorded by the police and other relevant documents or extracts therefrom to the accused free of cost. Section 208 of the Cr.P.C. applies in the case of the Court of Session but both the provisions have not been complied with and the relevant documents (electronic documents) were not supplied whereas the petitioners were in judicial custody. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of P. Gopalkrishnan alias Dileep vs. State of Kerala and Anr. reported in AIR 2020 SC 1 and Jahid Shaikh and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in 2011 (7) SCC 762.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Solapurkar would submit that at the time of submission of charge-sheet its copy was supplied to the petitioner along with all the necessary documents and no objection was raised by the petitioners. He would further submit that within reasonable time no application was moved, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioners under Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and perused the documents.

8. Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

“Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-

(i) the police report;

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

(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (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 sub- section (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 secti