IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 10 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4510 of 2025 CHANDRA KANT MISHRA Versus UNION OF INDIA Appearance:

Shri Deepesh Joshi & Shaurya Ps Parihar Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (IX Additional Sessions Judge), Bhopal in S.T. No.07/2015 whereby the applicant’s application under Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected.

2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the trial court, praying for a direction to the prosecution to furnish mirror images of the hard disks seized from scanners S-1 to S-6 and the hard disk CKM-1, contending that the same were essential for the purpose of effective defense.

3. The prosecution, in its reply, submitted that it was relying only on extracts taken from nine hard disks, and that soft copies of the relied-upon data had already been supplied to the applicant in the form of DVDs. It was further contended that the hard disks contained data pertaining to other examinations conducted by Vyapam, which were not relevant to the present case.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:

(a) The applicant was serving as an Assistant Programmer at the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (MPPEB), commonly known as “Vyapam” (Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal). According to the prosecution, the scanning of the OMR answer sheets for the said examination was carried out through scanners S-5 and S-6 between 15.05.2013 and 17.05.2013. It is alleged that thereafter, the applicant, in collusion with other accused persons, illegally accessed and tampered with the OMR answer sheets of fourteen candidates, rescanned the manipulated answer sheets on 11.06.2013 and on subsequent dates, and that the selection of the said candidates was made on the basis of the tampered data. The applicant, being the overall in-charge of the scanning operations at Vyapam during the relevant period, has been arrayed as the primary accused in all cases concerning the alleged tampering of OMR answer sheets. During the course of investigation, the STF and the CBI seized six (6) hard disks from six scanners numbered S-1 to S-6, which were used for scanning the OMR answer sheets. In addition, one more hard disk, marked CKM-1, was seized from a computer system.

(b) Upon hearing both parties, the Learned Trial Court, vide order dated 07.03.2022, held that since the prosecution had already provided the applicant with the extracts of the material relied upon, the requirement under Sections 207/208 CrPC stood duly complied with. The Court further observed that as the remaining contents of the hard disks related to other examinations, they were irrelevant for the purpose of the present trial. Consequently, the application filed by the applicant under Section 208 CrPC was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the furnishing of documents to the accused under Sections 207 and 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a facet of the right of the accused to a fair trial, which is enshrined in our Criminal Justice System and Article 21 of the Constitution. It is a well-settled canon of our Criminal Justice System that the liberty of an accused cannot be interfered with except by due process of law, and the expression “due process of law” is deemed to include fairness in trial. The Criminal Procedure Code gives the accused the right to receive all documents and statements, as well as to move an applic