Allowed

Anil Saraswat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2023CRLMP/798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged order dismissing application for cloned copy of C.D. from digital voice recorder. Court quashed order following precedent holding non-supply impinges on Constitutional right to fair trial without prejudicing prosecution. Directed trial court to provide cloned copy.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissed application for cloned copy of C.D. quashed; trial court directed to provide cloned copy with contents of Digital Voice Recorder at earliest.

Anil Saraswat Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:21406]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 798/2023

¶4

Anil Saraswat S/o Omkar Prasad Saraswat, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Road No. R-2, H.no. 5, Jay Shree Colony, Near Dhulkot, Udaipur, At Present Assistant Engineer, Office- Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Hiranmagri Sec. No. 4 , Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. MA Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG assisted by Mr. AR Malkani

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Judgment

¶12

13/07/2023

¶13

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.11.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No.1, Udaipur whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.P.C. for supplying a cloned copy of C.D. with contents of Digital voice Recorder.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. for providing cloned copy of original conversation which was kept in digital voice recorder but the same was dismissed by the trial court with a view that copy of the C.D. of the original conversation has already been provided to the petitioner and furthermore, hard copies of original conversation has also been provided to him along with copy of

¶15

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-798/2023]

¶16

[2023:RJ-JD:21406]

¶17

challan papers. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the C.D. provided to the petitioner appears to be tampered one. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court at Jaiupr Bench in the case of Radheshyam Vs. State, SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.9180/2022 decided on 20.12.2022 in which similarly controversy was decided and the trial court was directed to provide a cloned copy of the C.D. with contents of Digital Voice Recorder to the petitioner.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that C.D. has already been provided to the petitioner and therefore, there is no need to provide a cloned copy of memory card of Digital Voice Recorder.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

The controversy involved in the present case has already been resolved by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Radheshyam (supra) . The relevant paras read as under :

¶21

“The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken the same view in the case of Sanwarmal Raigar (Supra) and held that no prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecution, if the prosecution provides the cloned copy of the C.D to the accused petitioner. The controversy involved in this case has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Gopalkrishnan (supra) which has been followed by this Court in the case of Sanwarmal Raigar (Supra) and it has been held as under:-

¶22

“Evidently, no prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecution, if the prosecution provides the cloned

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:21406]

[CRLMP-798/2023]

copy of the C.D. to the accused petitioner rather non-supply would impinge upon Constitutional right of the petitioner. Consequently that portion of the impugned order stands, hereby, quashed, whereby, the Court below had refused the prayer of the petitioner to have a cloned copy of the C.D. and the petition stands allowed keeping in view the right of the accused to be put on fair trial.”

¶27

Hence, under these circumstances, this Court has no reason to take a different view on the issue which has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.Gopalkrishnan (Supra) and followed by this Court in the case of Sanwarmal Raigar (Supra) .

¶28

In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 29.03.2022 and 03.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Matters, No. 1, Jaipur in case No.24/2021 are quashed and set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide a cloned copy of the C.D. with contents of Digital Voice Recorder to the petitioner at the earliest.

¶29

With the above observations, the instant petition as well as stay application stands disposed of.”

¶30

Hence, this Court is of the opinion to take a similar view on the issue which has already been decided by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Radheshyam (supra) .

¶31

In view of above, the impugned order dated 03.11.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No.1, Udaipur is hereby quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to provide a cloned copy of the C.D. with contents of Digital Voice Recorder to the petitioner at the earliest.

¶32

With the above observations, the instant misc. petition as well as stay application stands disposed of.

¶33

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶34

12-MS/-

Anil Saraswat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Saraswat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Chasta Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramvilas Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Sampatraj Mehta Vs State

Natharam Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Joli Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of Rajasthan