Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Kumar Gupta vs Lokayukt Organisation on 17 April, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8499
1 MCRC-51853-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 17th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51853 of 2024
DEVENDRA KUMAR GUPTA
Versus
LOKAYUKT ORGANISATION
Appearance:
Shri Mayank Mishra- Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sankalp Sharma- Special Public Prosecutor for respondent/Lokayukt.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC filed by petitioner seeking quashment of order dated 12.09.2024 passed in Special Case No.03/2023 (Lok) by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Morena by which application under Section 207(5) read with Section 173(5) of CrPC got rejected.
Petitioner is an accused in the case and is facing trial for alleged offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. He was posted on the post of Assistant Grade-III in District Business and Industry Centre, Morena at the relevant point of time. Now, petitioner is seeking copy of C.D. of conversation held between complainant and petitioner with original file, so that meta, data and hash value can be ascertained and noted by petitioner.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 17-Apr-25 06:54:19 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8499 2 MCRC-51853-2024 Counsel for respondent/Lokayukt opposed the prayer on the ground that original voice recorder is not going to be produced by prosecution because of the fact that voice in recorder has already been transmitted through a computer in C.D. and that C.D. with endorsement and procedure prescribed as per Section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act filed before the trial Court. C.D. provided by Lokayukt in the chargesheet is not a clone copy, but prepared as per the procedure as explained above alongwith certificate under Section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, once certification under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act has been carried out, then it has the value of primary/secondary evidence as per Indian Evidence Act. However, petitioner can take all possible defence which is available to him in accordance with law in the trial Court.
Considering the submissions and going through the impugned order, it appears that the Lokayukt has proceeded with the preparation of C.D. as explained by learned counsel for Lokayukt and it has been endorsed under Section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, at this stage, petitioner has no occasion to raise any grievance. Once duplicate clone copy is not available, then it cannot be provided even if, any direction is given and such direction would be a futile exercise. Petitioner is always at liberty to raise all the grounds available to him including this question raised in the petition in accordance with law before the trial Court.
Petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 17-Apr-25 06:54:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8499 3 MCRC-51853-2024 (ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH) JUDGE JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 17-Apr-25 06:54:19 PM