ORDER

This revision is directed as against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.529 of 2021 in S.C.No.41 of 2021, dated 27.09.2021, by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, thereby partly dismissed the petition filed under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner is the second accused in S.C.No.41 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil. Having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 417 of I.P.C r/w Sections 376, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as against the first accused and for the offences under Section 201 of I.P.C r/w Section 417 of I.P.C r/w Sections 376, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as against the second accused, namely, the petitioner herein.

4. While pending trial, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 207 of Cr.P.C for a direction to issue copy of the entire charge sheet. The trial Court partly allowed the petition and dismissed the claim of the petitioner insofar as the copies of page Nos.231 to 246 are the list of other victims with their mobile number and address, who are not related to this crime; page Nos.249 to 276 are the Forensic Science Lab Report which contains obscene images of this victim and other victims; page Nos.335 to 358 are concerned with Crime No.503 of 2020 on the file of the Kottar Police Station; page Nos.359 & 360 is athatchi concerned with Crime No.18 of 2020 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Nagercoil; page Nos.361 to 430 are the proceedings with list of details of images and videos of the victim in this case and other victims; page Nos.433 to 454 are the photos, contact details of the victim in this victim, extraction report, security accounts and page Nos.455 to 792 are the photos of the victims and other victims.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent did not provide proper paging on the papers attached with the final report and admittedly, the petitioner was not provided with all the copies which are going to rely upon by the prosecution. It causes prejudice and affect the fair trial of the petitioner. The petitioner is in prison from the date of arrest. In such circumstances, the Court below directed the petitioner to have an inspection over the records may not be a fruitful exercise for him. It is also not practically possible and it could be difficult task for him to read and get notes on the papers. The law provides the accused entitlement to get a fair trial by providing all the documents which are relied upon by the prosecution along with charge sheet. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of this Court passed in Crl.O.P.No.29860 of 2013 in the case of K.Ramajeyam Vs. The State represented by, the Inspector of Police, dated 25.11.2013. This Court relied upon the Judgment reported in 2010 (2) SCC (Crl) 1385 in the case of Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that one of the established facets of a just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of an accused to ask for all such documents that he may be entitled to under the scheme contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The right of the accused to received the documents/statements submitted before the Court is absolute and it must be adhered to by the prosecution and the Court must ensure supply of documents/statements to the accused in accordance with law. The liberty of an accused cannot be interfered with except under due process of law. The expression 'due process of law' shall deem to include fairness in trial. The concept of fair disclosure would take in its ambit furnishing of a document which the prose