ORDER

1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the order dated 4.2.2021 passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions and Special Judge, CBI (Vyapam Cases), Bhopal in Special Case No.9500003 of 2015 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under section 207 read with section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and further seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to supply a copy of all such documents relied upon by the prosecution.

2. The case of prosecution is that an FIR was lodged in Crime No.539 of 2013 pertaining to the Pre-medical Test, 2013 for offences punishable under section 13(1)(d)(iii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sections 120-B read with 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, section 4 read with section 3D(1)(2) of the M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937 as well as sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Various accused have been arrested therein. The investigation has been completed and earlier the charge sheet was filed by the STF. After the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the investigation was taken over by the CBI. Thereafter, the CBI filed a supplementary charge-sheet. In the said charge sheet, the petitioner was also arrayed as one of the accused.

3. The plea of the petitioner herein is that he filed an application in order to obtain the cloned copies of certain documents marked as HDDs S-1 to S-6, C-1, CKM-1 and G-1. It is his plea that these are all the CDs which have been recovered by the prosecution during the course of investigation. Therefore, he requires the cloned copies of all these material that have been seized by the prosecution.

4. The same was objected by the prosecution on the ground that whatever is being produced by them, the copies of the same have already been furnished to the accused. What is ostensibly sought for is the material which is not relevant to the case in hand. Therefore, it is not necessary for the prosecution to submit those material which are not relevant to the accused so far as this case is concerned. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application. In doing so it came to the conclusion that all the material that have been relied upon by the prosecution, copies of the same have already been furnished at the time of filling of the charge-sheet. That the CD contains various other material outside the instant case, for example, it contains certain obscene material also. Thereafter, it came to the view that all the material that the prosecution has relied upon have been furnished to the accused. Therefore, the plea of the accused for grant of additional material is beyond what is being relied upon by the prosecution. Hence, the application was rightly rejected.

5. Heard learned counsels.

6. The plea of the petitioner herein is to direct the respondent to furnish the cloned copies of all the hard-disks and other material that have been seized by the prosecution. In support of his case, learned counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 with reference to para 50, which reads as follows :--

“50 In conclusion, we hold that the contents of the memory card/pen-drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial.

However, in cases involving issues such as of privacy of the complainant/witness or his/her identity, the Court may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial. The Court may issue suitable directions to balance the interests of both sides.”

7. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion t