ORDER

( Passed on 29/10/2021)

Per Anil Verma, J. :

The petitioner has filed present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 21/10/2021 passed by the Special Jduge, CBI, Indore in Special case no. 01/2009, whereby learned Court below has dismissed the application filed for providing certificate of CD and cassettes, so that the same can be sent for voice recognition report.

2. In the Court below, the petitioner/accused filed an application for providing certified copy of the CD and cassettes, which as per the prosecution incorporated conversation and voice recordings respectively, so that it can be sent to voice expert. After hearing both the parties, learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner, therefore, the said order is under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by learned Court below is contrary to law and facts on record. Learned Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the petitioner is not causing any delay in the trial, but only demanding fair trial. Hon'ble High Court has ordered for expedite trial upon a petition filed by the co-accused Pankaj Gupta. Present petitioner was never issued any notice, nor he was party with the petition. The order was passed without hearing the present petitioner. Present case is pending before the trial Court since last 10 years and the prosecution itself took more than 10 years to complete its evidence, but when the applicant filed an application to cross-examine technical expert as defence witness and demanding fair trial, the learned court below denied a fair and impartial trial to the petitioner. In the eyes of law, both the prosecution and the accused persons have the same status. The trial has so many scientific points therefore, it is necessary to provide the accused certified copy of the CD and cassette for the purpose of transparency and to demonstrate to the expert defence witness. In every stage of trial, the petitioner has objected the genuineness and correctness of the the CD and cassette to be submitted as evidence. Even he has disputed it in his statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C and to examine Shri Deepal Tanwar, who signed voice test report, hence he prays that the impugned order passed by the Court below be set aside and the instant petition be allowed, as also to direct the trial Court to provide certified copy of the CD and cassette to the petitioner, so that the same may be sent to the voice recognition expert.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and prays for its rejection.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

6. It is not disputed that there is telephonic conversation between the witnesses and the accused persons and the said conversation is alleged to be recorded on electronic recording and transferred to various CDs and output of the same CDs were transcribed, therefore, the said CD and cassette are material piece of evidence, because the defence has objected to the admission of the aforementioned evidence and he challenged the genuineness and correctness of the CD and cassette , therefore, the defence have every right to adduce the evidence in rebuttal. The demand of the petitioner to examine technical expert as defence witness cannot be treated as unjust, and unreasonable. The defence has also made request before the Court below for providing certified copy of the CD and cassette for the purpose of analysis of voice recognition expert, but the Court below rejected his prayer by stating that the required the CD and cassette are alredy with the accused persons since beginning of the case and there is no meaning to ask for certified copy of the CD and cassette .

7. Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act says that electronic record needs to be certified by a person occupying official position for being a