Dr. S. MURALIDHAR, J.

Introduction

1. 1.1 Questions of law concerning supply of copies of documents, gathered by the prosecution during investigation, to an accused person at the pre-charge stage arise for consideration in these petitions. It involves the interpretation of Sections 173 (5) and 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), Sections 3 and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (EA) and Sections 2 (o) read with Section 2 (t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

2. 1.2 In order to appreciate the issues that arise a brief background is being set out. The petitioners here are persons accused of offences under Section 120-B IPC and under Sections 7 to 12, 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) in four different cases. In the charge sheets filed in the four cases, the prosecution has stated that as part of the investigation, intercepted telephonic conversations between the accused persons were recorded on four hard discs (HDs) in the computer systems kept at the office of the Special Unit (SU) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in New Delhi. The charge sheets further state that these conversations took place on fifteen mobile phones and land lines (hereafter tapped phones), belonging to one of the accused, which were placed under electronic surveillance between December 2002 and March 2003 pursuant to statutory permissions obtained from time to time from the competent authority. After listening to and analyzing the intercepted conversations recorded on the HDs, the CBI transferred to separate Compact Discs (CDs) such of those conversations which CBI considered to be relevant for each of the four cases.

3. 1.3 The four computer systems containing the HDs and the CDs were then sent to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Sciences Laboratory (APFSL) for certification for two purposes. First, that the HDs were in working condition as required by Section 65B (2) (c) EA and secondly, that the conversations transferred to the CDs were true copies of their original recording on the HDs. The CDs certified by the APFSL were thereafter forwarded to the learned Special Judge, New Delhi along with the charge sheets. The four HDs have been retained at the APFSL, Hyderabad.

4. 1.4 The Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and issued process to the accused. Copies of the respective charge sheet and its annexures, along with a transcript of the intercepted telephone conversations relevant to the case were furnished to each of the accused. Later, the CDs containing the said relevant telephone conversations were also supplied to the accused.

5. 1.5 During the course of arguments on charge, some of the accused in the four cases filed applications before the Special Judge asking for a direction to the CBI to supply to each of them mirror-image copies of the HDs. This was declined by the Special Judge by separate orders. Aggrieved, the accused have approached this Court with the present petitions, one of which is under Article 226 of the Constitution and the others under section 482 CrPC.

6. 1.6 On 16th May 2007 this Court directed that arguments on charge could be proceeded with before the Special Judge but formal order be kept in reserve. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 29th February 2008 requesting this Court to take up the case on 4th March 2008 and dispose of the matter latest by 11.03.2008.

7. 1.7 In compliance of an order dated 29th February 2008 passed by the Supreme Court, these petitions were heard on March 4th, 6th, 8th and 9th 2008 and judgment is delivered today, 11th March 2008. Despite the last three dates being holidays, counsel for the parties addressed arguments on each of them. The Court expresses its appreciation of the cooperation extended by counsel. The four cases

8. 2.1 There are four cases in each of which a charge sheet has been filed and where some or all of the Petitioners h