1. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 2) had filed IA No. 723/2012 for inspection of unmarked documents filed by the Investigating Officer to enable her to answer the questions framed under S.313 CrPC. IA No. 723/2012 was rejected by the trial court. Therefore, accused No. 2 is before this court.

2. I have heard Sri. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel for petitioner and Sri. B. V. Acharya, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Sri. Udaya Holla, learned sonior counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:
I. That the documents referred to under S.173(5) CrPC, include all the documents forwarded to the learned Magistrate, Accused No. 2 has right to know the contents of documents.
II. The examination of accused No. 2 under S.313 CrPC, is not an empty formality and the answers given by accused No. 2 under S.313 CrPC, may be used against her.
III. When accused No. 2 has sought for certified copies of unmarked documents by filing IA No. 711/2012, the trial court has rejected the same on the ground that the documents are voluminous and the order has been confirmed by this court in Criminal Petition No, 1840/2012 dated 16.04.2012.
IV. The prosecution has not pleaded that prejudice would be caused if accused No. 2 / learned counsel for accused No. 2 is permitted to inspect the unmarked documents.
V. Accused No. 2 cannot answer the questions framed under S.313 CrPC, if such an opportunity is not provided to her and that would not ensure a fair trial which is a constitutional right guaranteed to accused No. 2.

4. The learned senior counsel for petitioner has relied on following decisions:
I. 2010 (8) SCC 249 (in the case of Sanatan Naskar v. Slate of West Bengal).
II. 2010 (12) SCC 310 (in the case of Manu Sao v. State of Bihar)
III. 2010 (9) SCC 20 (in the case of Balasubramanian v. State through Inspector of Police)
IV. 2000 (10) SCC 72 : AIR 2000 SC 3475 (in the case of Geetha v. State of Karnataka)
V. AIR 1953 SC 468 (in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat)
VI. 1983 (2) SCC 372 : AIR 1983 SC 439 (in the case of State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman)
VII. 2008 (16) SCC 705 (in the case of Samadhan Dhudaka Koli v. State of Maharashtra)

5. Sri. B.V. Acharya, learned Special Public Prosecutor has made following submissions:
I. That accused No. 2 is interested in protracting the proceedings. Therefore, accused No. 2 had made IA No. 723/2012 before the trial court. After commencement of examination of accused No. 2 under S.313 CrPC, accused No. 2 had made application after application to protract the proceedings. The examination of accused under S.313 CrPC, commenced on 18.02.2012 is hallway through.
II. The trial court had posted the matter for examination of accused No. 2 under S.313 CrPC, on 29.11.2011. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for several reasons pleaded by accused and several interlocutory applications were filed and orders made by this court and were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As of now, accused No. 2 has answered 632 questions and examination of accused No. 2 is halfway through.
III. The right available to accused No. 2 under S.207 CrPC, has to be exercised in terms of S.238 CrPC. The supply of copies to accused and right of inspection of documents available to accused are intended to make the accused aware of materials which are sought to be utilised against him,

6. The learned special Public Prosecutor has referred to the order of the Supreme Court in Transfer Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 77-78/2003 dated 18.11.2003 and has drawn the attention of this court to the directions contained in paragraph 34 of the order, reading as hereunder:
34.(a). The State of Karnataka in consultation with the chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka shall constitute a Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to whom CC No. 7 of 1997 and CC No. 2 of 2001 pending on the file of the XIth Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No. 1), Chennai in the Stat