Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Pachori vs Special Police Establishment ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32265
1 MCRC-35800-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 10 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35800 of 2025
MANISH PACHORI
Versus
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKTA THROUGH ITS
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunshil Chandra Chaturvedi and Shri Ajeet Sudele - Advocate for the Special Police
Establishment (Lokayukta).
ORDER
Per. Justice Anil Verma
1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 528 of BNSS of 2023 challenging the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) Bhind whereby, the trial court has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 207(5) read with Section 173(5) (A) of the Cr.P.C and Section 230(5) read with section 193(6) of the BNSS 2023.
2. The instant petition arises from the criminal proceedings wherein, the petitioner who is facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sought production of the original recording device, a cloned copy of the CD containing the alleged evidence and the Hash Value of the purported bribe demand. It is also contended that the request made by the petitioner is crucial for fair and just trial as the same has been predicated upon and apprehension that the supplied CD might not be an accurate reflection of the original recording.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 12/11/2025 1:27:23 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32265 2 MCRC-35800-2025
3. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 207(5) read with Section 173(5) (A) of the Cr.P.C and Section 230(5) read with section 193(6) of the BNSS 2023. Despite the petitioner's submission and the reliance on relevant legal precedents, the learned trial court, in its impugned order dated 14.07.2025 has rejected his application. This perfunctory disposition, devoid of reasons analysis, constitutes a grave miscarriage of justice and and necessitates the intervention of this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law and fact in summarily rejecting the application for the production of the original recording device i.e. a cloned copy of the CD containing the alleged evidence, and the Hash Value of the purported bribe demand. This rejection is contrary to the established legal principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Gopal Krishnan Vs. Sate of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 which mandates the disclosure of all evidence to the accused for a fair trial, constitutes a serious violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. Apart from the above, the trial court has failed to appreciate significance of this evidence. It is contended that the copy supplied by the prosecution along with the charge sheet to the petitioner is only a dubbed copy and not a cloned copy, thereby denying the rights of the petitioner-accused for obtaining a copy of the complete conversation. For this purpose, the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Gopal Krishnan (Supra), order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramsuhawan Anuragi Vs. The State of M.P dated 19th December, 2023 in M.Cr.C.No.54973 of 2023 and the judgment, order of the Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Jaideep Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan on 07.01.2025 in Cr.Misc. (Petition) No.7024 of 2022 and order dated 13.09.2023 in the case of Anil Saraswat Vs. Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 12/11/2025 1:27:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32265 3 MCRC-35800-2025 State of Rajasthan in Cr.Misc. (Pet.) No.798 of 2023.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer and prays for it's rejection by supporting the impugned order passed by the trial court.
6. Heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the entire record with due care.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of P.Gopal Krishnan (Supra) where, the Apex Court was deliberating upon interplay between two fundamental rights i.e. right to fair trial and right to privacy and concluded that ordinarily accused must be given a cloned copy of any electronic record relied upon by prosecution to enable him to prepare and present his defence effectively during trial. But the case before the Apex Court was relating to the offence of rape and other peripheral offences and therefore, the question of right to privacy of victim assumed relevance. However, in the present case, the offence is under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, the concept of right of privacy is not involved in the matter.
8. The issue in the present matter is as to whether, the contents of a memory card/pen-drive being an electronic record as predicated in Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short "the IT Act, 2000"), would thereby qualify as a "document" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872 and Section 29 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). If so, whether in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `CRPC"), it was obligatory to the prosecution to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of such memory card/pen-drive to the appellant/accused facing prosecution for the aforesaid offences. Since the same has been appended to the police report submitted to the Magistrate and the prosecution has proposed to rely upon it against the accused. From perusal of record, it appears that the offence pertains to the Provisions of Corruption Act and video recording/CD is the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 12/11/2025 1:27:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32265 4 MCRC-35800-2025 subject matter in the case and it is also a part of evidence against the accused persons, the respondents have produced the voice recording before the trial court and a copy of the same has been provided to the petitioner along with the charge sheet. The respondents have not produced original voice recorder in the evidence, hence, the same cannot be provided to the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has produced dubbed copy of the CD containing voice recording of the proceedings. It is noteworthy that the CD given to the petitioner is the same CD relied by the respondents and they verified it as a secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act and the copies made from original through mechanical process ensuring accuracy, has stored in original DVR on the Government Laptop supported by the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is sufficient for the accused to mount his defence before the trial court.
9. Apart from the above, it is also note-worthy that the forensic report and the other material relied upon has been duly supplied to the petitioner as per provisions of Section 207 (5) of the Cr.P.C read with Section 193(6) of the BNSS, therefore, the petitioner is not prejudiced. It is also notable that the issue regarding legality of the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Evidence Act ought not to have been dealt with at this stage. Therefore, the issue of authenticity of the CD remained open.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sameer Sandhir Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation vide order dated 23.05.2025 passed in Cr.Appeal Nos.4718-1719 of 2024 has observed as under :
"In our view, the High Court ought not to have gone into the issue of the authenticity of the CDs allowed to be produced. Whether, the CDs produced were the same which were seized on 4th May 2013 and 10th May 2013, is something which will have to be proved by the prosecution. The issue regarding the legality of the Certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act ought not to have been dealt with at Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 12/11/2025 1:27:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32265 5 MCRC-35800-2025 this stage. Even if the production was allowed, the issue of the CDs' authenticity remains open."
11. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has dealt with all these legal aspects therefore, in these circumstances, present petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court is not maintainable, therefore, this petition is dismissed.
12. However, the issue regarding validity of certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act and authenticity of CDS are kept open. The issue of CDS/Video recording sought to be produced after recording of prosecution witnesses, is also kept open.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Rks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAM KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing time: 12/11/2025
1:27:23 PM