1

ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8840/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-06-2023

in CRWP No. 799/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay at Aurangabad)

VIDYADHAR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.139838/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING

C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.139839/2023-EXEMPTION FROM

FILING O.T. and IA No.139840/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )

Date : 31-07-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR

Ms. Suvarna Ganu., Adv.

Mr. Sanket Sanjeev Deshpande, Adv.

Ms. Mrinal Pande, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Heard Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner who is facing charges under the provisions

of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requested for a copy of the

voice sample of the alleged conversion between the complainant and

the accused and the Court then furnished him a copy of the voice

sample and conversions in a pen-drive. However, along with the pen-

drive, its hash value certificate and other details of the pen-

Digitally signed by

SWETA BALODI

Date: 2023.08.03

15:51:49 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

drive were not supplied. Accordingly, the petitioner made an

application for furnishing the certificate of hash value and other

details of the pen-drive but the same was dis-allowed by the

learned Sessions Judge and the said order is upheld by the High

Court in the impugned judgment.

3.

In the above context, Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel

refers to the ratio in ‘P. Gopalkrishnan Alias Dileep Vs. State of

Kerala & Anr., reported in (2000) 9 SCC 161, where this Court made

the following observations:

“……….

38. It is crystal clear that all documents

including “electronic record” produced for the inspection

of the Court alongwith the police report and which

prosecution proposes to use against the accused must be

furnished to the accused as per the mandate of Section

207 of the 1973 Code. The concomitant is that the

contents of the memory card/pen-drive must be furnished

to the accused, which can be done in the form of cloned

copy of the memory card/pen-drive. It is cardinal that a

person tried for such a serious offence should be

furnished with all the material and evidence in advance,

on which the prosecution proposes to rely against him

during the trial. Any other view would not only impinge

upon the statutory mandate contained in the 1973 Code,

but also the right of an accused to a fair trial

enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

44. Needless to mention that the appellant before us or

the other accused cannot and are not claiming any

expertise, much less, capability of undertaking forensic

analysis of the cloned copy of the contents of the memory

card/pen-drive. They may have to eventually depend on

3

some expert agency. In our opinion, the accused, who are

interested in reassuring themselves about the genuineness

and credibility of the contents of the memory card in

question or that of the pen-drive produced before the

trial Court by the prosecution on which the prosecution

would rely during the trial, are free to take opinion of

an independent expert agency, such as the