Non-compliance with mandatory document supply under Section 230 B.N.S.S. constitutes a violation of the right to fair trial, rendering the charge framed by the trial court void.

JUDGMENT :

AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Learned A.G.A. has filed the counter affidavit. Sri Shive Datta Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 appears and files vakalatnama as well as the counter affidavit. The same are taken on record.

2. Sri Divyanshu Pathak, learned counsel for the accused-applicant appears and submits that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the State as well as the opposite party no.4. He submits that sole ground of moving the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is the framing of charge by the trial court without the mandatory compliance of Section 230 B.N.S.S., which mandates that the copy of police report and other documents shall be provided to the accused-applicant and further submits that the order of taking cognizance dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act, Etawah in Special Case No.22 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijendra Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 352, 65(1) B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act as well as Sections 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Usarahar District Etawah, has not made any mention in the order that the copies be provided to the accused-applicant. He further submits that Sections 261 and 262 of B.N.S.S. provides for an opportunity of accused to move the discharge application and provides a limitation for the same, whereas, the trial court without providing the documents and the copy of police report to the accused-applicant has fixed the date for framing of charge and therefore, has not complied the mandatory provisions of the Act. Hence, seeks interference of this Court.

3. Sri Shive Datte Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 and learned A.G.A. for the State have stated that the trial court has provided the copies of police papers and documents, which has been received by the accused-applicant on the margin of the order shown at page no.95 of the application. Both of them have stated that the order dated 06.01.2025 shows that the court has taken cognizance in the presence of the accused on 06.01.2025 and sufficient time was provided to the accused to move the discharge application, but has not been moved by the accused, which led to the framing of charge on 04.04.2025. Further submits that the applicant has belatedly moved the present application and therefore, the application is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

4. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

5. Section 230 B.N.S.S. provides that the court concerned shall provide the copies of documents and police papers relied on by the prosecution not beyond 14 days from the date of production or appearance of the accused. The provision of Section 230 B.N.S.S. is reiterated underneath:-

"Section 230. Supply to 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, and in no case beyond fourteen days from the date of production or appearance of the accused, furnish to the accused and the victim (if represented by an advocate) free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—

(i) the police report;

(ii) the first information report recorded under section 173;

(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 180 of all persons