HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9180/2022

Radheshyam S/o Matadeen, R/o Palawa Police Station

Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar Presently Residing

At House No. 220, Near Balaji College Balaji Extension 25, Police

Station Harmada Jaipur (West), Dist. Jaipur At Present A.s.i.

Police

Station

Vidhadhar

Nagar,

Jaipur

(North),

Commissionerate, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Nikhil Saini for Mr. Inder Raj Saini

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Prashant Sharma-PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

20/12/2022

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

against the impugned orders 29.03.2022 and 03.09.2022 passed

by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Matters, No. 1, Jaipur in

case No.24/2021 by which the application filed by the petitioner

under Section 207 Cr.P.C. for supplying clone copy of the C.D. has

been rejected.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an

accused in FIR No. 56/2021, registered at Police Station ACB,

Jaipur and he is facing trial for the offences under Sections 7 and

7-A of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018. Counsel

for the petitioner submits that when the charge sheet was

submitted against the petitioner, the Investigating Agency

(2 of 5)

[CRLMP-9180/2022]

supplied the challan papers along-with C.D of conversation to the

petitioner as per the provisions contained under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that the Investigating Agency is alleged to

have recorded the voice of the petitioner in a Digital Voice

Recorder and a copy in the form of CD has been provided to the

petitioner. Counsel submits that when the copy of the C.D was

examined from the Lab then it was found that the said C.D

appears to be tampered one. Counsel submits that thereafter, the

petitioner submitted an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. for

supplying the cloned copy of the memory card of the Digital Voice

Recorder. Counsel submits that when the arguments were heard

on the said application, the learned trial Judge rejected the same

by holding that the cloned copy of the said memory card has

already been supplied to the petitioner, hence, the application filed

by the petitioner was not maintainable. Counsel submits that clone

copy was never supplied to the petitioner hence the trial Judge

has erroneously recorded the above fact while passing the

impugned order dated 29.03.2022. Counsel submits that

immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for

correction of the order dated 29.03.2022 before the trial Court,

but the learned trial Judge rejected the said application while

holding that as per provisions contained under Section 362

Cr.P.C., the Court has no power to recall or review its own order.

Counsel submits that the petitioner has not submitted any

application for review rather he submitted an application for

correction of the facts which were incorrectly recorded in the order

dated 29.03.2022. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

accused has a right of fair trial and fair trial includes right to have

all the relevant documents including electronic documents, in

(3 of 5)

[CRLMP-9180/2022]

hands to meet the defence during the trial and this right cannot be

curtailed on flimsy ground.

Counsel submits that when the matter was listed before the

Court on 20.10.2022, the Court directed the State-respondent to

file specific reply as to whether the CD of which the petitioner

wants clone copy would be relied by the prosecution during trial or

not.

In response to the said order, the State-respondent has

submitted its reply and has admitted that the prosecution is going

to rely on the said cloned copy during the course of trial but the

learned Public Prosecu