JUDGMENT With the consent of the parties, the case was finally heard. This revision has been filed by the applicant/accused against the order dated 16.3.2001 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria in Sessions Trial No. 198/2000, by which on demand of the copies of the photographs produced by the prosecution being made, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has declined to give copies on the ground that on account of the absence of negatives of the photographs, since the photographs were not admissible in evidence, there, was no necessity of giving copies of such documents. Section 207 of CrPC makes provision for supply of copies of document filed by the prosecution and reads as under : "207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents -- In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a Police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following - (i) the Police report; (ii) the first information Report recorded under section 154; (iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the Police under sub-section (6) of section 173 (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164 (v) any other documents or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173; Provided that the Magistrate may, after persuing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof, .as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused: Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy there of, direct that he will only be allowed, to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court. Clause (v) also includes the documents other than enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv). However, section 207 does not prescribe that for the purpose of furnishing copies a document should be admissible in evidence.
Clause (v) also includes the documents other than enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv). However, section 207 does not prescribe that for the purpose of furnishing copies a document should be admissible in evidence. Even otherwise as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Lallu Singh v. State of M.P., 1996 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 269 = 1996 MPLJ 452 , the accused can make use of a document irrespective of whether the same has been formally proved by the prosecution or not if a document has been filed by the prosecution. The observation contained in paragraph 7 of the Judgment reads as extracted below: "7. Though, it is desirable that if the prosecution fails to produce the evidence for proving the document which it goes in favour of the accused; that accused should get the witnesses summoned through Court and prove the document. However, even if this formality has not been observed, since the document is a part of record and has been produced along with the police report, the same can always be considered by the Court to the advantage of the accused." It is, therefore, clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in not furnishing copies of the photographs filed by the prosecution to the accused. It is not disputed by the learned State Counsel that xe rox copies of photographs can also be prepared and given to the accused. In the result, this revision is allowed. The order dated 16.3.2001 insofar as it declines to grant copies of the photographs filed by the prosecution is set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to make available to the accused the copies of photographs filed by the prosecution and to proceed with ~he case in accordance with law.