HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1530/2023

Sanwarmal Raigar S/o Shri Ganeshram, R/o Village & Post

Udaipuriya, tehsil-Chomu, District-Jaipur, at present R/o House

No. 40-A, Shivnagar, Murlipura, Jaipur

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Saurabh Jain

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

31/03/2023

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has approached this court for following relief:-

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that the

present petition may kindly be allowed and the order

dated 23/01/2023, passed by the Special Session

Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Kota, may

kindly by quashed and set aside.

It is further most humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the

respondent-prosecution to furnish a cloned copy of

the contents of the original voice recorder/original

data/ pen drive containing the audio content in the

same format as obtained in the pen drive and the

transcript of human voices, and furnish the said

cloned copy of the original voice recorder/original

data/pen drive and the transcript to the humble

petitioner.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

of the case in favour of the petitioner.”

The petitioner is an accused facing trial in a case registered

under Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-1530/2023]

The petitioner had earlier approached this court ventilating

the same grievance for necessary direction to supply a clone copy

of contents of electronic record in the form of C.D. The prayer was

refused by the trial court. The claim of the petitioner was on the

ground that C.D. already provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C. was

tampered one.

By order dated 03.08.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc.

Petition No. 3313/2020, this court relying on the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan. Vs. State of Kerala &

Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 directed the trial Judge to

ensure that a clone copy of C.D. be provided to the petitioner.

By the impugned order dated 23.01.2023, the court below

directed that the sealed C.D. provided alongwith the charge-sheet

be sent for preparation of clone C.D. to the Forensic Science

Laboratory and be provided to the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he should be provided

a cloned copy of the original one and not a cloned copy of the C.D.

supplied to the court at the time of charge-sheet.

The court would supply only a copy of the document

available with the court which was submitted at the time of filing

of charge-sheet. If that electronic document was not prepared

following the mandate of law, its evidentiary value would be

considered at the appropriate stage of trial.

Therefore, no substantial right of petitioner is going to be

defeated if the trial court directed that a copy of the available C.D.

be prepared following the requirement under Section 65-B of

Evidence Act and be supplied to the petitioner. The trial Judge has

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-1530/2023]

also recorded that frivolous petition has been filed by petitioner

just to delay the trial.

This court is also of the view that the petitioner is indulged

in filing of a frivolous petition, therefore, this petition stands

dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the Victim

Compensation Fund within 15 days and the petitioner shall

produce receipt of deposit to the trial Judge failing which trial

judge would take necessary steps for the recovery of aforesaid

amount.

Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

ashu /38