JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh along with Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for challenging the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri rejecting the application submitted by the applicant under Sections 231(2), 207 Cr.P.C. in Special Sessions Trial No.164 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.705 of 2018, under Sections 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the C.D. regarding alleged information given by the first informant to the Investigating Officer, Ex. SA-2 is not admissible in evidence as no certificate as required by Section 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act has been furnished. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the object behind incorporation of Section 207 Cr.P.C. is to enable the accused to defend himself properly and it is achieved only by supplying of vital documents like police report, statements of witnesses during investigation, confession etc. to the accused so that he may have notice of the charge, he is to meet and cross-examining the witnesses. 5. His next submission is that the idea behind supply of copies to the accused is, thus, to put him to a notice of what he has to meet at the inquiry or trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the documents in terms of Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. are supplied to make the accused aware of the materials which are sought to be utilized against him. The object is to enable the accused to defend himself properly. 7. His further submission is that "any other document" mentioned in clause (v) of the Section 207 Cr.P.C. includes electronic document such as C.D./ pen drive etc. which, in the instant case, learned trial court did not supply to the present applicant causing failure of justice to him. The learned Magistrate is duty bound to furnish such document to the applicant under Section 207 Cr.P.C. without any delay. 8. which, in the instant case, learned trial court did not supply to the present applicant causing failure of justice to him. The learned Magistrate is duty bound to furnish such document to the applicant under Section 207 Cr.P.C. without any delay. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has concluded his submission by submitting that the learned trial court below has erred in not supplying copy of C.D. without any just cause, which has caused failure of justice to the applicant. The applicant will not be able to defend himself properly and it would, thus, amount to denial of his right to defend properly. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. have vehemently the opposed the prayer by submitting that the learned trial court has rightly refused supply of CD. The accused/ applicant has knowledge of this fact and, therefore, it cannot be said that his right to defend himself properly is defeated in any manner by non-supplying of such electronic document. 10. His further submission is that it is a deliberate move on the part of present applicant to delay the proceeding. Therefore, no interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required at this stage. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it appears that the first information report bearing No.0705 of 2018, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri came to be lodged against the present applicant. The applicant was named in the aforesaid first information report. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the present applicant for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. Thereafter, it appears that an application dated 03.09.2022 came to be moved by the accused/ applicant under Section 231(2) read with Section 207 Cr.P.C. whereby the main prayer of the applicant was to provide him cloned copy of C.D. which, according to statement of Inspector Ram Singh Yadav PW-7, was recorded in the mobile phone by this witness when the injured/ deceased informed him that he was shot by the accused persons. This application came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri, on the ground that the copies of prosecution papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C. came to be supplied to the accused persons on 28.03.2019. This fact finds mentioned in the order sheet dated 28.03.2019. The case pertains to the year 2018 and is old. The C.D. has been kept in a sealed cover and has been exhibited as Ex. KaSA2. The learned trial court has refused to give its copy on the ground that If it is cloned, the data may get deleted and may also be tempered with causing disappearance of important evidence. Therefore, the learned trial court rejected the application dated 03.09.2022. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan alias Dileep vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 in paras-17, 18, 21, 26, 30, 38 and 47 has held as under:- "17. On receipt of the police report and the accompanying statements and documents by virtue of Section 207 of the 1973 Code, the Magistrate is then obliged to furnish copies of each of the statements and documents to the accused. Section 207 reads thus: "207. On receipt of the police report and the accompanying statements and documents by virtue of Section 207 of the 1973 Code, the Magistrate is then obliged to furnish copies of each of the statements and documents to the accused. Section 207 reads thus: "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 subsection (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 officer under sub-section (6) of Section 173; (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164; (v) any other document 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 perusing 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 thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court." As regards the statements, the first proviso enables the Magistrate to withhold any part thereof referred to in clause (iii), from the accused on being satisfied with the note and the reasons specified by the investigating officer as predicated in sub-section (6) of Section 173. However, when it comes to furnishing of documents submitted by the investigating officer along with police report, the Magistrate can withhold only such document referred to in clause (v), which in his opinion, is "voluminous". In that case, the accused can be permitted to take inspection of the document concerned either personally or through his pleader in Court. However, when it comes to furnishing of documents submitted by the investigating officer along with police report, the Magistrate can withhold only such document referred to in clause (v), which in his opinion, is "voluminous". In that case, the accused can be permitted to take inspection of the document concerned either personally or through his pleader in Court. In other words, Section 207 of the 1973 Code does not empower the Magistrate to withhold any "document" submitted by the investigating officer along with the police report except when it is voluminous. A fortiori, it necessarily follows that even if the investigating officer appends his note in respect of any particular document, that will be of no avail as his power is limited to do so only in respect of "statements" referred to in subsection (6) of Section 173 of the 1973 Code. 18. Be that as it may, the Magistrate's duty under Section 207 at this stage is in the nature of administrative work, whereby he is required to ensure full compliance of the section. We may usefully advert to the dictum in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] wherein it was held that : (SCC p. 123, para 47) "47. Since after the filing of the charge-sheet, the court reaches the stage of inquiry and as soon as the court frames the charges, the trial commences, and therefore, the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208 CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pre-trial stage, intended to put the process into motion. This stage cannot be said to be a judicial step in the true sense for it only requires an application of mind rather than a judicial application of mind. At this pre-trial stage, the Magistrate is required to perform acts in the nature of administrative work rather than judicial such as ensuring compliance with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC, and committing the matter if it is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court." (emphasis supplied) 21. At this pre-trial stage, the Magistrate is required to perform acts in the nature of administrative work rather than judicial such as ensuring compliance with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC, and committing the matter if it is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court." (emphasis supplied) 21. Be that as it may, furnishing of documents to the accused under Section 207 of the 1973 Code is a facet of right of the accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] , this Court expounded thus : (SCC pp. 85-86, paras 218-21) "218. The liberty of an accused cannot be interfered with except under due process of law. The expression "due process of law" shall deem to include fairness in trial. The court (sic Code) gives a right to the accused to receive all documents and statements as well as to move an application for production of any record or witness in support of his case. This constitutional mandate and statutory rights given to the accused place an implied obligation upon the prosecution (prosecution and the Prosecutor) to make fair disclosure. The concept of fair disclosure would take in its ambit furnishing of a document which the prosecution relies upon whether filed in court or not. That document should essentially be furnished to the accused and even in the cases where during investigation a document is bona fide obtained by the investigating agency and in the opinion of the Prosecutor is relevant and would help in arriving at the truth, that document should also be disclosed to the accused. 219. The role and obligation of the Prosecutor particularly in relation to disclosure cannot be equated under our law to that prevalent under the English system as aforereferred to. But at the same time, the demand for a fair trial cannot be ignored. It may be of different consequences where a document which has been obtained suspiciously, fraudulently or by causing undue advantage to the accused during investigation such document could be denied in the discretion of the Prosecutor to the accused whether the prosecution relies or not upon such documents, however in other cases the obligation to disclose would be more certain. It may be of different consequences where a document which has been obtained suspiciously, fraudulently or by causing undue advantage to the accused during investigation such document could be denied in the discretion of the Prosecutor to the accused whether the prosecution relies or not upon such documents, however in other cases the obligation to disclose would be more certain. As already noticed the provisions of Section 207 have a material bearing on this subject and make an interesting reading. This provision not only require or mandate that the court without delay and free of cost should furnish to the accused copies of the police report, first information report, statements, confessional statements of the persons recorded under Section 161 whom the prosecution wishes to examine as witnesses, of course, excluding any part of a statement or document as contemplated under Section 173(6) of the Code, any other document or relevant extract thereof which has been submitted to the Magistrate by the police under sub-section (5) of Section 173. In contradistinction to the provisions of Section 173, where the legislature has used the expression 'documents on which the prosecution relies' are not used under Section 207 of the Code. Therefore, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code will have to be given liberal and relevant meaning so as to achieve its object. Not only this, the documents submitted to the Magistrate along with the report under Section 173(5) would deem to include the documents which have to be sent to the Magistrate during the course of investigation as per the requirement of Section 170(2) of the Code. 220. The right of the accused with regard to disclosure of documents is a limited right but is codified and is the very foundation of a fair investigation and trial. On such matters, the accused cannot claim an indefeasible legal right to claim every document of the police file or even the portions which are permitted to be excluded from the documents annexed to the report under Section 173(2) as per orders of the court. But certain rights of the accused flow both from the codified law as well as from equitable concepts of the constitutional jurisdiction, as substantial variation to such procedure would frustrate the very basis of a fair trial. But certain rights of the accused flow both from the codified law as well as from equitable concepts of the constitutional jurisdiction, as substantial variation to such procedure would frustrate the very basis of a fair trial. To claim documents within the purview of scope of Sections 207, 243 read with the provisions of Section 173 in its entirety and power of the court under Section 91 of the Code to summon documents signifies and provides precepts which will govern the right of the accused to claim copies of the statement and documents which the prosecution has collected during investigation and upon which they rely. 221. It will be difficult for the court to say that the accused has no right to claim copies of the documents or request the court for production of a document which is part of the general diary subject to satisfying the basic ingredients of law stated therein. A document which has been obtained bona fide and has bearing on the case of the prosecution and in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, the same should be disclosed to the accused in the interest of justice and fair investigation and trial should be furnished to the accused. Then that document should be disclosed to the accused giving him chance of fair defence, particularly when nonproduction or disclosure of such a document would affect administration of criminal justice and the defence of the accused prejudicially." (emphasis supplied) 26. It can be safely deduced from the aforementioned expositions that the basis of classifying article as a "document" depends upon the information which is inscribed and not on where it is inscribed. It may be useful to advert to the exposition of this Court holding that tape records of speeches [Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 112 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 826] and audio/video cassettes [Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17 ] including compact disc [Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, (2016) 15 SCC 485 : (2016) 4 SCC (Cri) 683] were "documents" under Section 3 of the 1872 Act, which stand on no different footing than photographs and are held admissible in evidence. It is by now well established that the electronic record produced for the inspection of the court is documentary evidence under Section 3 of the 1872 Act [Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] . 30. Having noticed the above definitions, we may now turn to definitions of expressions "document" and "evidence" in Section 3 of the 1872 Act being the interpretation clause. The same reads thus: "3. Interpretation clause.—** * "Document".—"Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. Illustrations A writing is a document; Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents; A map or plan is a document; An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document; A caricature is a document. "Evidence".—"Evidence" means and includes— (1) all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court, such documents are called documentary evidence." On a bare reading of the definition of "evidence", it clearly takes within its fold documentary evidence to mean and include all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court. Although, we need not dilate on the question of admissibility of the contents of the memory card/pen-drive, the same will have to be answered on the basis of Section 65-B of the 1872 Act. The same reads thus: "65-B. Admissibility of electronic records.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely— (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether— (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say— (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it (5) For the purposes of this section- (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process." This provision is reiteration of the legal position that any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a "document" and shall be admissible in evidence subject to satisfying other requirements of the said provision. 38. It is crystal clear that all documents including "electronic record" produced for the inspection of the court along with the police report and which prosecution proposes to use against the accused must be furnished to the accused as per the mandate of Section 207 of the 1973 Code. The concomitant is that the contents of the memory card/pen-drive must be furnished to the accused, which can be done in the form of cloned copy of the memory card/pen-drive. It is cardinal that a person tried for such a serious offence should be furnished with all the material and evidence in advance, on which the prosecution proposes to rely against him during the trial. Any other view would not only impinge upon the statutory mandate contained in the 1973 Code, but also the right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 47. We are conscious of the fact that Section 207 of the 1973 Code permits withholding of document(s) by the Magistrate only if it is voluminous and for no other reason. If it is an "electronic record", certainly the ground predicated in the second proviso in Section 207, of being voluminous, ordinarily, cannot be invoked and will be unavailable. We are also conscious of the dictum in Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Satyen Bhowmick [Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Satyen Bhowmick, (1981) 2 SCC 109 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 342] , wherein this Court has restated the cardinal principle that the accused is entitled to have copies of the statements and documents accompanying the police report, which the prosecution may use against him during the trial." 13. Adverting to the facts of this case, admittedly, the CD in which alleged statement of injured/ deceased is contained in the form of Ex. SA-2 stands exhibited during the course of evidence. So far as the contention that the said C.D. is not admissible in evidence because no certificate as required by Section 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act is appended is concerned, the same can be seen and adjudicated by the learned court below itself at appropriate stage. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-50 of P. Gopalkrishnan's case (supra), has held as under:- "50. In conclusion, we hold that the contents of the memory card/pen-drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-50 of P. Gopalkrishnan's case (supra), has held as under:- "50. In conclusion, we hold that the contents of the memory card/pen-drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial. However, in cases involving issues such as of privacy of the complainant/witness or his/her identity, the Court may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial. The court may issue suitable directions to balance the interests of both sides." (emphasis supplied) 15. Therefore, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan's case (supra), it is clear that a C.D. is also an electronic document. Therefore, a copy of the same ought to be supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The supply of any such electronic document could be denied only in the exceptional case specified in para-50 of P. Gopalkrishnan's case (supra) itself. 16. It appears that the learned trial court has denied the applicant the copy of C.D. on the ground that the process of cloning may lead to deletion of data or may also lead to tempering with the same which is hypothetical and without any basis. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained particularly keeping in view the fact that the object behind incorporation of Section 207 Cr.P.C. is to enable the accused to defend himself properly which is achieved by supplying of vital documents only 17. In Sadhvi Ritumbhara v. State of M.P., 1996 SCC OnLine MP 261, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, while deciding a criminal revision has held that a copy of alleged audio/video cassettes containing alleged objectionable speech is necessary to be given to accused. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri, insofar as it declines the supply of copy of CD to the applicant is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed to that extent only. 19. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 20. 19. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 20. The learned trial court is directed to dispose of the application dated 03.09.2022 afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in strict accordance with law expeditiously particularly keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan's case (supra).