Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The applicant filed an application under section 91 of Cr.P.C for providing her a transcript CD which was seized by the prosecution.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant while assailing the said order, placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Nityra Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy reported in (2018) 2 SCC 93.

5. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. The trial Court has observed that the CD and its transcript was part of the charge sheet as Ex.P/4 and the applicant has never raised any objection that the aforesaid document is not part of the charge sheet, when the charge sheet was filed. Even when the case was committed for the competent Court, she did not make any complaint that she has not received the copy of the CD. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court on 22.01.2021 and the charges were framed on 11.02.2021. Thus, it cannot be held that the applicant did not receive copy of the CD transcript Exb.P/4.

6. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply to the facts of the case. In the said case, it was held that the documents which are not part of the charge sheet can also be directed to be summoned if they are having crucial bearing on the issue of framing of the charge. In the present case, the CD transcript was already supplied to the petitioner and she never demanded copy of the same at the time of filling of the charge sheet, framing of the charge and committal order. There is no illegality and juridical error in the impugned order. Hence. the revision petition stands dismissed.