Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1344 (MP)

SANJEEV MAHAJAN v. STATE OF M P

2006-11-28

S.C.VYAS

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) MATTER is heard finally, with the consent of both the parties. ( 2. ) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C, for giving directions to the Trial Court to the effect that copy of the hard disk which has been seized by the police during investigation along with all datas be provided to the present petitioner, which is an accused in a case pending in the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 467, 320, 471 and 477-A read with Section 34 of IPC, on the allegation that he made material alteration in the hard disk of computer and thereby committed fraud and cheating. ( 3. ) FROM the perusal of the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 577/2006 on 4-10-2006, it appears that prosecution is proposing to rely on the portion of the hard disk of which a copy has been provided to the present petitioner/accused by way of CD. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR and as per the case of prosecution the charge against the present petitioner is that he made material alteration in the hard disk of the computer of Gujrat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, which is having its turnover of Crores of rupees per annum and present petitioner was working in that society as salesman. ( 5. ) IT has been specifically mentioned in the FIR that some alterations were made in the invoices and false credit balance were shown, so that he himself can be benefited and marking of Gujrat Co-operative Milk Marketing federation Ltd. may put to some loss. It is alleged that in this way petitioner/accused has caused a loss of Rs. 42,42,868. 97 to the federation. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of these allegations and for the purpose of effective cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and to meet the charges levelled against the present petitioner, it is necessary that the copy of the entire hard disk be provided to the present petitioner. ( 7. 97 to the federation. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of these allegations and for the purpose of effective cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and to meet the charges levelled against the present petitioner, it is necessary that the copy of the entire hard disk be provided to the present petitioner. ( 7. ) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that copy of all necessary entries of the datas of the hard disk on which prosecution proposes to rely, have already been supplied to the petitioner in the form of CD and remaining portion of the hard disk contains some confidential information and at the same time bulky and voluminous portion of the hard disk which is also not related with the facts of the present case and those entries are not relevant for the purpose of this case. In such situation, it is not necessary for prosecution to provide copy of that portion of the hard disk to the petitioner. ( 8. ) I have considered the rival contentions advanced of learned counsels for both the parties. Section 173 of the Cr. PC provides for providing copy of certain documents to the accused, who is facing charge and who is to be tried. The section itself shows that prosecution is obliged to provide copies of only such documents on which prosecution proposes to rely. It has also been provided under that section that if certain portion of some document is not relevant or on which prosecution does not proposes to rely or copy of such portion is not practicable to provide, then copy of such portion may not be provided to the accused in a trial. ( 9. ) SECTION 173 of Cr. PC gives a very valuable right to an accused to combat the case of prosecution effectively and to provide him full opportunity of a fair trial. But at the same time if in trial prosecution does not rely on some portion of a document or feels that copy of portion of document is not necessary to be provided to the accused, then copy of such portion may also not be provided to the accused, but it is always upon the prosecution to decide as to whether it is going to rely on that another portion of the document or not. ( 10. ( 10. ) IN the facts of the present case, prosecution is specifically saying that except the portion of the hard disk of which copy has been provided to the present petitioner by way of CD remaining portion of the hard disk is not going to be relied on by the prosecution in the trial. Then in such a situation it is not necessary to give direction to prosecution to provide any further copy of any other portion of the hard disk. ( 11. ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that during the course of the trial if at any time prosecution feels that such other portion of hard disk is also relevant in the trial and it is necessary to lead some evidence regarding that portion also, then in such circumstances it will be the duty of the prosecution to provide first a copy of such portion also in form of CD to the present petitioner, who is facing trial, then only prosecution will be permitted by the Trial Court to use that portion in the trial as evidence against present petitioner. ( 12. ) THUS the petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.