Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Kant Mishra vs Union Of India on 10 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915
1 MCRC-4510-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4510 of 2025
CHANDRA KANT MISHRA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Shri Deepesh Joshi & Shaurya Ps Parihar Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (IX Additional Sessions Judge), Bhopal in S.T. No.07/2015 whereby the applicant's application under Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected.
2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the trial court, praying for a direction to the prosecution to furnish mirror images of the hard disks seized from scanners S-1 to S-6 and the hard disk CKM-1, contending that the same were essential for the purpose of effective defense.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 2 MCRC-4510-2025
3. The prosecution, in its reply, submitted that it was relying only on extracts taken from nine hard disks, and that soft copies of the relied-upon data had already been supplied to the applicant in the form of DVDs. It was further contended that the hard disks contained data pertaining to other examinations conducted by Vyapam, which were not relevant to the present case.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:
(a) The applicant was serving as an Assistant Programmer at the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (MPPEB), commonly known as "Vyapam" (Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal). According to the prosecution, the scanning of the OMR answer sheets for the said examination was carried out through scanners S-5 and S-6 between 15.05.2013 and 17.05.2013. It is alleged that thereafter, the applicant, in collusion with other accused persons, illegally accessed and tampered with the OMR answer sheets of fourteen candidates, rescanned the manipulated answer sheets on 11.06.2013 and on subsequent dates, and that the selection of the said candidates was made on the basis of the tampered data. The applicant, being the overall in-charge of the scanning operations at Vyapam during the relevant period, has been arrayed as the primary accused in all cases concerning the alleged tampering of OMR answer sheets. During the course of investigation, the STF and the CBI seized six (6) hard disks from six scanners numbered S-1 to S-6, which were used for scanning the OMR Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 3 MCRC-4510-2025 answer sheets. In addition, one more hard disk, marked CKM-1, was seized from a computer system.
(b) Upon hearing both parties, the Learned Trial Court, vide order dated 07.03.2022, held that since the prosecution had already provided the applicant with the extracts of the material relied upon, the requirement under Sections 207/208 CrPC stood duly complied with. The Court further observed that as the remaining contents of the hard disks related to other examinations, they were irrelevant for the purpose of the present trial. Consequently, the application filed by the applicant under Section 208 CrPC was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the furnishing of documents to the accused under Sections 207 and 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a facet of the right of the accused to a fair trial, which is enshrined in our Criminal Justice System and Article 21 of the Constitution. It is a well-settled canon of our Criminal Justice System that the liberty of an accused cannot be interfered with except by due process of law, and the expression "due process of law" is deemed to include fairness in trial. The Criminal Procedure Code gives the accused the right to receive all documents and statements, as well as to move an application for the production of any document or witness in support of his defence.
7. It is further submitted that the constitutional mandate and the statutory rights given to the accused place an implied obligation upon the prosecution to make fair disclosure, and the concept of fair disclosure should encompass any document which forms part of the final report, irrespective of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 4 MCRC-4510-2025 whether the prosecution relies on it or not. Therefore, the mirror images of the hard discs submitted by the respondent along with the final report in the instant trial should be furnished to the petitioner on this ground as well.
8. It is also submitted that in the instant trial, the respondent, in reply to the petitioner's application under Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has admitted that they have relied upon extracts of as many as nine hard discs in the instant trial and that they had provided those extracts to the petitioner at the time of submission of the final report. It is important to mention here that, as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document. Therefore, every hard disc whose extracts are relied upon by the respondent is a "document." In light of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it can be stated that the law does not differentiate between an electronic document and a physical document. Furthermore, it is well settled that if the prosecution relies on a part of a document, the entire document should be provided to the accused, and any deviation from this will not only frustrate the mandate of Sections 173, 207, and 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code but will also violate the very principles of the right to a fair trial. Providing only a part of the document on which the prosecution relies, and not the entire document, will be gravely prejudicial to the accused and will incapacitate the accused from defending himself effectively.
9. It is also submitted that the respondent, in their reply to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 5 MCRC-4510-2025 petitioner's application, further averred that the hard discs were not seized in the instant trial but were seized in Case No. RC2172015A0008, RC2172015A0025 (STF Case No. 12/13), and RC2172015A108 (STF Case No. 539/13). The fact that the hard discs were seized in a different case will not advantage the respondent's case, as all the above-mentioned hard discs are part of the final report submitted by the respondent in the instant trial, and the respondent has admittedly relied upon extracts of these hard discs in the instant trial. As per the mandate of the Criminal Procedure Code, all documents submitted in the final report and all documents relied upon by the prosecution should be furnished to the accused, irrespective of whether the documents were seized in that particular case or not. Moreover, it is important to mention that the petitioner is also an accused in all the above- mentioned cases in which these hard discs were seized, and if the mirror images of the hard discs are provided in the instant trial, they can be used by the petitioner in the other trials as well, thereby reducing multiplicity of litigation.
10. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court, in the impugned order dated 07.03.2022, held that the respondent had not relied on the data of scanners numbered S-1 to S-4, which is factually incorrect, as the respondent themselves admitted in their reply to the application under Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code that they were relying on extracts of nine hard discs and had also submitted those hard discs before the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the data of other examinations in the hard disc CKM-1 is being relied upon by the respondent in other trials, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 6 MCRC-4510-2025 and it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is an accused in those trials as well. Hence, if the mirror image of the hard disc numbered CKM-1 is provided in the instant trial, it can be used by the petitioner in other trials too, thus reducing multiplicity of litigation.
11. It is also submitted by learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner would require details such as when the unauthorized files were created in the hard discs, how many times the data in the hard discs was modified, and which candidates' files were modified, changed, or altered, in order to effectively defend against the aforesaid allegations. These requirements can only be fulfilled if the mirror images of the hard discs are provided to the petitioner. In our opinion, The entire scanners S1 to S6 and hard disk CK1 are not the subject matter of the trial. Only the scanned copies of 14 OMR sheets, which were kept in scanners S4 to S6 and hard disk CK1, are relevant to the trial. The entire data available in S4 to S6 and CK1 is also not the subject of the trial. Only the soft copies of the OMR sheets are subject to the trial.
12. The queries raised by the petitioner may be clarified during the cross-examination of the expert witnesses, at which time the petitioner can use the entire evidence available on record. However, before the stage of framing of charge, the court cannot direct the prosecution to provide any document which is not relied upon by the prosecution in its case. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of the petitioner.
13. Petitioner has placed his reliance in support of his argument on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court in case of P. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 7 MCRC-4510-2025 Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 9 SCC 161, Ponnusamy V/s State of Tamil Nadu, ILR 2008 II Delhi 842, Dharambir's v/s CBI, Tarun Tyagi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2017 (4) SCC 490.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has already been provided with all the documents and electronic records relied upon by the prosecution in compliance with Sections 207 and 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted that the petitioner's demand for mirror images of the hard discs cannot be entertained, as the same contain data and information pertaining to several other examinations and cases, which are not relevant to the present trial. Furnishing the complete mirror images would amount to disclosing sensitive and confidential data unrelated to this case, thereby hampering the investigation and violating the privacy and confidentiality of third parties.
15. The allegation against the petitioner is that after the completion of the scanning of the OMR sheets of the exam, the accused allegedly unsealed the boxes containing the candidates' OMR sheets and unauthorizedly filled up the OMR sheets of 14 candidates and rescanned the OMR sheets by the scanner S5 and S6, as a result of which those candidates were declared successful in the examination. Therefore, scanners S-1 to S-4 are not related to the present trial. The scanners S-5 and S-6, along with the hard disk CKM-1, have already been provided to the accused under Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
16. During investigation, scanners S-1 to S-6 and hard disk CKM-1 were recovered and included in the challan as part of the prosecution Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 8 MCRC-4510-2025 evidence. The case of the prosecution is primarily based on scanners S-5 and S-6 and hard disk CKM-1, in which it was found that the accused had unauthorizedly altered the data after the scanning of the OMR sheets.
17. It is also recorded in the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 that the data from scanner S-5, scanner S-6, and hard disk CKM-1, along with their hash values, have already been provided to the accused.
18. In case of Tarun Tyagi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2017 (4) SCC 490, the Apex Court has held that section 207 of the Code, which is the hallmark of a fair trial that every document relied upon by the prosecution has to be supplied to the defence/accused at the time of supply of the charge sheet to enable such an accused to demonstrate that no case is made out against him and also to enable him to prepare his cross- examination and defence strategy. The hard disks marked Q-2, 9 and 20 be supplied to the appellant subject to the following conditions:(a) Before supplying the said CDs, the contents thereof shall be recorded in the Court, in the presence of complainant as well as the appellant and both of them shall attest the veracity thereof by putting their signatures so that there is no dispute about these contents later thereby removing the possibility of tempering thereof by the appellant.(b) The appellant shall not make use of the source code contained in the said CDs or misuse the same in any manner and give an affidavit of undertaking to this effect in the trial court.
19. It has been submitted by learned counsel of the petitioner that he has facing six trial regarding the same offence and all data of six cases were saved in one heard disc. Therefor the contention of the learned counsel of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 9 MCRC-4510-2025 CBI should not be acceptable regarding the data of other exam which is also saved in hard disc. On other hand it is objected that other data which is related to other cases has already been provided in other cases which cannot claimed in this case. In our opinion the relevant data available in hard disc has been provided to accused with hash value therefore no need to provide clone of the hard disc. Secondly there is no dispute regarding the source code of the software therefor no need to clone of the hard disc to disprove the source code of the original software. In Tyagi case there is a dispute of stolen of sources code of complainant software and prepared other software for sailing by accused. in above case accused raised a defence he used own sources code, he never used complainant software source code , to prove his defence, clone of hard disc is required. on the above facts of the case Tyagi case is not help to get a clone of hard disc. The above case square not applied in present cases. Soft copy of the hard disc and scanner had already be given to the petitioner which his full compliance of the provision of the section 208 Cr.P.C.
20. In P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 9 SCC 161, the Apex Court has held that 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 be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 10 MCRC-4510-2025 for presenting effective defence during the trial. The court may issue suitable directions to balance the interests of both sides.
21. The Apex Court in case of Ponnusamy V/s State of Tamil Nadu APPEAL NO(S). OF 2022[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 9288 of 2022, has held that it is true that this court in V.K. Sasikala (supra) was dealing with material/documents that were forwarded to the Magistrate under Section 173 CrPC, but were not being relied upon by the prosecution. However, it is undeniable that there could also arise a situation wherein the investigating officer, ignores or does not rely on seized documents, material or evidence which favours the accused, and fails to forward it to the Magistrate [as required under Section173 CrPC, specifically sub-section (6)]. Merely because it is not already on the record of the court, cannot disentitle the accused from accessing material that may have exculpatory value.
22. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that the case of the prosecution is primarily based on scanners S-5 and S-6 and hard disk CKM-1, in which it was found that the accused had unauthorizedly altered the data after the scanning of the OMR sheets. Scanners S-1 and S-4 is not related to the questionable candidate exam.
23. Dharambir's case Delhi High Court in Dharambir, ILR 2008 II Delhi 842 on the issue of power of Trial Court or High Court in directing supply of copy of documents when they are not relied upon by the prosecution, has held that "the trial court or this court cannot, at the pre- charge stage, direct the prosecution to furnish copies of documents other than that which it proposes to rely upon or which have already been sent to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 11 MCRC-4510-2025 the court during investigation".
24. V.K. Sasikala v.State, (2012) 9 SCC 771, in that case, the documents were forwarded to the court under Section 173(5) Cr P C but were not relied upon by the prosecution and the accused wanted copies/inspection of those documents. This Court held that it was incumbent upon the trial court to supply the copies of these documents to the accused as that entitlement was a facet of just, fair and transparent investigation/trial and constituted an inalienable attribute of the process of a fair trial which Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees to every accused. The fact however remains that the principles enunciated in Sasikala's case (supra) would be attracted only during the course of trial, which is not the case in hand.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Trial Court, while dismissing the application under Section 208 Cr.P.C., has rightly held that since the prosecution had already provided the applicant with the extracts of the material relied upon, the requirement under Sections 207/208 Cr.P.C. stood duly complied with. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the application under Section 208 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
26. It is made clear that if the petitioner requires any document (hard disk or pen drive) during the trial, which was submitted with the charge sheet but not relied upon by the prosecution, and is required during the cross- examination of the witnesses in evidence, the petitioner is free to move an application before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court shall pass an appropriate order without being influenced by this order.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 14-11- 2025 10:04:45NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56915 12 MCRC-4510-2025
27. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time: 14-11-
2025 10:04:45