JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this criminal misc. petition is to the order dated 6th of May, 2008 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Court No. 2), Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned court has rejected the application of the petitioner accused with regard to the supply of a copy of a document. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order of the trial court. 3. From the factual matrix in this case, it is revealed that a sketch map was produced by the prosecution in the court on 6th May, 2008 when PW-18 Hemant, an army expert was produced in the witness box to tender his evidence. It is found that the counsel for the accused having raised the objection prayed the court that a copy of this document be made available to him which was duly turned down by the impugned order of the trial court. 4. From the perusal of the impugned order it is found that two documents which were tendered in evidence on 6th of May, 2008, have been exhibited as Ex.34 and Article 10. Needless to say, the moment the documents are exhibited, they become admissible in evidence. It is a well settled principle of criminal law that the documents on which prosecution depends its case, a copy thereof is required to be given to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. A document which has become admissible in evidence and has been exhibited by the prosecution remains no more secret at all. I am afraid that any provision of official secret or any other provision of any law bars the court to supply a copy of such a document or on which the whole prosecution case hinge. The impugned order is found to be against the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. as also against the settled provisions of law. Apart this one more point which pertubs me is that if documents Ex.P34 and Ex. Article 10 are so secret and concerned with the security and sovereignty of India, then what made the prosecution to make them public and tender in evidence during the trial of the case. A very laughing argument was advanced by the learned public prosecutor that the accused could get the certified copy of these documents from copying section. Article 10 are so secret and concerned with the security and sovereignty of India, then what made the prosecution to make them public and tender in evidence during the trial of the case. A very laughing argument was advanced by the learned public prosecutor that the accused could get the certified copy of these documents from copying section. When the prosecution is resting its case on some documents, can under the provisions of law, prosecution deprive the accused of his valuable right of having a copy thereof? No. The impugned order of lower court does not appear to be just and legal which deserves to be set aside. 5. As a result of above, this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC. is allowed and the impugned order dated 6th of May, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Court No. 2), Jaipur City, Jaipur is set aside. The learned trial court is directed to afford 7n opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and decide this matter afresh, in accordance with the provisions of law.Petition allowed. *******