Prosecution must provide relevant evidence in proper format to the accused for fair defense during a trial.

JUDGMENT

Dated : 6^th February, 2026 The accused in S.C.No.562/2023 on the file of Fast Track Special Court, Changanassery, arising out of crime No.630/2023 of Thrikodithanam police station, filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P8 order of the learned Special Judge in Crl.M.P.73/2025 in S.C.No.562/2023 rejecting the above application.

2. The offences involved in the above case are under Sections

376(3), 376(2)(n) and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the PoCSO Act. The petitioner filed the above OP with a prayer to give direction to the prosecution to serve a cloned copy of the CD containing call details. From Ext.P8 order passed by the learned Special Judge, it is revealed that after the examination of PWs1 to 16, further investigation was conducted and a supplementary final report was filed on 12.11.2024. Certified CDR (in CD) details of mobile phone Nos.8590458543 and 8943022554 were produced before the Court on 4.11.2024. The hard copies of the aforesaid CDRs were served on the petitioner. In addition to the same, cloned copy of the CD containing the call details of mobile No. 8590458543 was also served on the petitioner. His grievance is that the cloned copy of the CD containing call details of the second mobile phone having No. 8943022554 was not given to him. Crl.M.P.No.73/2025 filed by the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose was dismissed by the learned Special Judge as per Ext.P8 order on the ground that the prosecution has expressed their inability to serve the cloned copy of the CD in respect of the above mobile phone and also that no prejudice will be caused to the accused by not serving the cloned copy of the above CD.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the prosecution relies upon the above CDs, they are entitled to get it’s copy. Further, according to the learned counsel, since there are voluminous data, it will be difficult to verify the details from hard copy and the purpose will be served only if a cloned copy is given.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that since the CD is in the custody of the Special Court, the prosecution could not serve its copy and only the Special Court can serve the same.

5. Since the prosecution relies upon the above CDs, which contained the CDR details of two mobile phones and a cloned copy of one of the CDs alone is served on the petitioner, and it is contended that the CD contained voluminous data that could be easily accessed only if a cloned copy is given, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this O.P(Crl) with a direction to the learned Special Judge to serve a cloned copy of the CD in respect of mobile No. 8943022554 to the petitioner, at the expense of the prosecution, before proceeding with the examination of the remaining witnesses.

Sd/-