ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge FTC, Raigarh in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2022 whereby an application moved by the petitioners/accused under Sections 207 and 208 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners are being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 459, 376, and 511 read with Section 34 of IPC pertaining to the FIR No. 329 of 2022 registered at Police Station Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh. 3. From a perusal of the charge sheet, it is apparent that article No. 19 is a 16GB pen drive containing the CCTV footage of 14.06.2022 from 8:51 am to 2:30 pm installed at house of one Naresh Patel, article No. 15 is a 32GB pen drive of SanDisk company containing videograph statements of witnesses recorded on 17.06.2022 and article No. 22 is a CD containing videograph statements of witnesses which were submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh along with the charge-sheet. 4. The learned Trial Court framed charges and thereafter the case has been fixed for recording evidence of the witnesses. The petitioners moved an application under Sections 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. for supply of the articles No. 19, 15 and 22 as these articles were not supplied to the petitioners along with the charge-sheet. The learned Trial Court vide Order dated 25.09.2023 rejected the application on the ground that no objection was taken when charge-sheet was supplied to the petitioners and no application was moved at an appropriate stage. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the provisions of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the concerned Magistrate is under obligation to supply the statements recorded by the police and other relevant documents or extracts therefrom to the accused free of cost. Section 208 of the Cr.P.C. applies in the case of the Court of Session but both the provisions have not been complied with and the relevant documents (electronic documents) were not supplied whereas the petitioners were in judicial custody. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of P. Gopalkrishnan alias Dileep vs. State of Kerala and Anr. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of P. Gopalkrishnan alias Dileep vs. State of Kerala and Anr. reported in AIR 2020 SC 1 and Jahid Shaikh and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in 2011 (7) SCC 762 . 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Solapurkar would submit that at the time of submission of charge-sheet its copy was supplied to the petitioner along with all the necessary documents and no objection was raised by the petitioners. He would further submit that within reasonable time no application was moved, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioners under Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and perused the documents. 8. Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and perused the documents. 8. Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “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 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. Section 208 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session. Where, in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under section 204 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:- (i) the statements recorded under section 200 or section 202, of all persons examined by the Magistrate; 1. Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, s, 18 (w, e. f, 18- 12-1978). Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, s, 18 (w, e. f, 18- 12-1978). (ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under section 161 or section 164; (iii) any documents produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely: Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document 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.” 9. From the perusal of the documents, it appears that the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raigarh (CG.) on 12.09.2022 for the commission of offences as stated above. From the list of the documents annexed to the charge sheet, it is apparent that article No.19 is a 16GB pen drive of HP company, article No. 15 is a 32GB pen drive of SanDisk company and article No. 22 is a CD which were made the part of the charge-sheet. There is no omission to the fact that these electronic documents/records were not provided to the petitioners along with the charge sheet. The petitioners, before the commencement of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, moved an application to provide electronic evidence and the learned Trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that these documents were supplied along with the charge sheet to the accused persons and no objection was raised at that time. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is not in consonance with the provisions of Sections 207, and 208 and the various pronouncements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jahid Shaikh (supra) while dealing with the similar issue observed in para 23 and 24 as under:- “23. However, as pointed out by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the manner in which the charges had been framed, without giving the Petitioners a meaningful opportunity of meeting the allegations made against them in the charge-sheet, will ultimately have a direct bearing on the trial itself. However, as pointed out by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the manner in which the charges had been framed, without giving the Petitioners a meaningful opportunity of meeting the allegations made against them in the charge-sheet, will ultimately have a direct bearing on the trial itself. The duty of the Sessions Court to supply copies of the charge-sheet and all the relevant documents relied upon by the prosecution under Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality and has to be complied with strictly so that the accused is not prejudiced in his defence even at the stage of framing of charge. The fact that many of the accused persons were not provided with copies of the charge-sheet and the other relevant documents, as indicated in Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C., seriously affects the right of an accused to a free and fair trial. 24. In the instant case, in addition to the above, it has also to be kept in mind that most of the accused persons in this case are from outside the State of Gujarat and are not, therefore, in a position to understand the documents relied upon by the police authorities as they were in Gujarati which most of the accused were unable to comprehend. Their demand for translated copies of the documents met with no response, and ultimately it was the very same documents in Gujarati, which were supplied to some of the accused in some of the cases.” 11. In the matter of P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No. 32 and 44 held as under:- “32. It is crystal clear that all documents including “electronic record” produced for the inspection of the Court alongwith 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/pendrive must be furnished to the accused, which can be done in the form of cloned copy of the memory card/pendrive. 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. 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. 44. 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.” 12. Now coming to the facts of the present case in light of the above discussion, it is quite clear that the accused has a right to get the entire charge sheet including the electronic record. In the present case, the electronic record was not supplied to the petitioners and before the commencement of the evidence of prosecution, the petitioners moved an application under Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC, but the learned Trial Court rejected the same. 13. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-discussed matters and the provisions contained under Sections 207 and 208 of the Cr.P.C., the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 25.09.2023 in Sessions Trial Court No. 60 of 2022 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the application moved by the petitioners under Sections 207 and 208 of the Cr. P.C is allowed. 14. The learned Court is directed to provide a clone copy of articles Nos. 15, 19 and 22 to the petitioners before the commencement of evidence of prosecution witnesses. 15. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is disposed of.