Allahabad High Court
Manish Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 July, 2023
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144886 Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25003 of 2023 Applicant :- Manish Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.18, Kanpur Nagar rejecting the application 13Kha, under sections 231(2) Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.287 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.271 of 2019 (State vs. Manish Dubey and others), under sections 376, 354, 506, 306, 511 I.P.C., Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant moved two applications before the trial court, one application u/s 207/208 Cr.P.C. dated 15.07.2022 which is marked as 10 Kha and second application under section 231(2) Cr.P.C. which is marked as Application No.13 Kha. By application No.10 Kha, applicant has sought some documents to be provided to him for his defence and by second application 13 Kha, under section 231 (2) Cr.P.C., applicant has prayed that proceeding of the trial court be stayed till examination of P.W.-1. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that trial court by order dated 25.05.2023 without application of mind decided both the applications and rejected the prayer sought by the applicant. The order is bad in the eye of law.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon paragraph 44 of the Apex Court judgment in Gopal Krishnan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala and another in Criminal Appeal No.1764 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl) No.10189 of 2018 and has held that in conclusion, the contents of the memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial. However, in cases involving issues such as of privacy of the complainant/witness or his/her identity, the Court may justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial. The court may issue suitable directions to balance the interests of both sides. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon paras 15, 16 and 17 of another judgment of this court in Application u/s 482 No.7509 of 2022 (Varun vs. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Lucknow and another.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that instant case relates to under sections 376, 354, 506, 306 & 511 I.P.C. and the applicant has sought CD which relates to the victim's photographs and video clips, which cannot be to given to the applicant. Trial court has passed the order after considering the objection raised by learned counsel for the applicant and the order passed by the trial court is just and proper.
6. Considered the arguments raised by counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and after perusal of the judgments cited by the counsel for the applicant, I am of the view that contents saved in electronic record like memory card/pen drive must be regarded as document and must be supplied to accused but the case in hand relate to offence under section 376 I.P.C. in which issues of privacy of the victim and other witnesses identity are concerned. In CD photographs and video clips regarding 376 I.P.C. cannot be given to accused. The court has rightly refused to provide CD. Court has justified in providing only inspection thereof. Reliance placed by court for the applicant over applicant's judgment has no application in the present case. Facts of present case is entirely different. Trial court judgment is just and proper. No illegality found in the judgment of the trial court dated 25.05.2023. The present 482 application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 20.7.2023 SKD