Order : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Special Judge, CBI No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, and has prayed for a direction against CBI to provide exact clone copies of memory cards labelled as VR, VR- 1 & MC in different memory cards as it was recorded and provide transcription of whole recordings recorded in the above memory cards. 2. Facts in brief are that pursuant to FIR lodged against the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, petitioner is facing trial before the Court of Special Judge CBI No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan-I. 3. At the time of filing of charge-sheet in the aforesaid case, a copy of charge-sheet and documents was provided to the petitioner and accordingly, trial proceeded further after framing of charges. 4. The petitioner has come out with a case that while filing charge-sheet, the prosecution agency-CBI has not provided copy of the documents in the exact form, in which it was relied upon by the CBI for the purpose of proving the alleged recordings of incidents regarding trial. Although, it has been admitted by the petitioner that one CD containing the recording has been provided to the accused petitioner, yet such CD (Compact Disc) is an incomplete document and cannot be said to be clone copy of original Micro SD cards/Memory Chip Cards. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated that during the course of examination of witnesses in the aforesaid trial, the prosecution produced PW-16-Amitosh Kumar, who happens to be Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I (Physics), CFSL, New Delhi. As per learned counsel for the petitioner aforesaid witness PW-16 appeared as an expert so as to prove the Data recorded in electronic form by the prosecution agency. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that aforesaid witness PW-16 was put to cross examination by learned counsel for the accused petitioner. During cross examination, the witness has stated that Voice Recording can be examined by two different methods i.e. Auditor analysis and Spectrografic examination. The witness has further stated that although, he had submitted one report Ex.17, yet he was not in a position to verify as to the recording has been done through DVR or through mobile. During cross examination, the witness has stated that Voice Recording can be examined by two different methods i.e. Auditor analysis and Spectrografic examination. The witness has further stated that although, he had submitted one report Ex.17, yet he was not in a position to verify as to the recording has been done through DVR or through mobile. Witness PW-16 further stated that the DVR through which voice recording was done on 26.12.2017 and 28.12.2017 was never sent by the CBI to him for the purpose of examination. 7. Learned counsel also points out that the witness PW-16 has also stated that the transcription sent to the witness does not exactly match with the recording and has further stated that copy of the recording made by him is not clone copy of the same. 8. Learned counsel would submit that as the statements given by the expert allegedly revealed that the CD provided by the prosecution agency-CBI along with charge-sheet containing electronic data with regard to voice recording is not clone copy of memory card used for the purpose of voice recording and the witness has also given uncertain statements with regard to the fact as to whether transcription furnished to the accused represents correct audio recorded or not? Hence, under these circumstances, application under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner with a request to direct the CBI to provide clone copies of the memory cards used for audio recording. 9. The request made by the accused-petitioner was opposed by the CBI before the Court below. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court below dismissed the application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner vide order dated 30.01.2023. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan Alias Dileep Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 as well as delivered by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.9180/2022 ( Radheshyam Vs. State of Rajasthan ) , decided on 20.12.2022 and the judgment dated 05.10.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1141/2017 ( Mukesh Kumar Meena Vs. Union of India though CBI ). 12. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 as well as delivered by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.9180/2022 ( Radheshyam Vs. State of Rajasthan ) , decided on 20.12.2022 and the judgment dated 05.10.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1141/2017 ( Mukesh Kumar Meena Vs. Union of India though CBI ). 12. While pressing challenge to aforesaid order dated 30.01.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accused-petitioner has got legitimate right to get all the documents exactly in the same form, in which it has been prepared and relied upon by the prosecution agency and when it comes to producing any Data in electronic form, copy thereof should be prepared and provided to the accused in the same form in which it has been prepared. 13. Learned counsel would submit that the term ‘document’ also includes ‘electronic records’ produced by the prosecution agency. Learned counsel submits that the Court below has utterly failed to exercise its jurisdiction in proper manner by not giving appropriate directions on application under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioner. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI opposed the petition and would submit that the application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioner is a deliberate attempt to delay the trial. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI submits that entire voice recording has already been provided to the petitioner by copying the same on a Compact Disc (CD) and even transcription thereof has also been furnished to the accused petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution agency is relying upon any separate document, may be in electronic form, different than what has not been provided to the accused-petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has also referred Para 20 of the impugned order dated 30.01.2024, in which it has been recorded by learned trial Court that Micro SD Cards have already been examined by the expert of CFSL and report thereof (Ex.P.27) is already on record, which nowhere refers to tampering with of any Data whatsoever, hence, there cannot be any doubt over its veracity. The expert has also been examined and the examination of complainant was being done and during such examination, Original Micro SD Card has already been produced before the Court. Audio recorded in Micro SD Cards was also played before the complainant. The expert has also been examined and the examination of complainant was being done and during such examination, Original Micro SD Card has already been produced before the Court. Audio recorded in Micro SD Cards was also played before the complainant. Earlier, no objection was raised with regard to their any change whatsoever in the voice recorded in Original Mirco SD Card and in its copy made in CD. Hence, by giving such reasons, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the accused-petitioner as there were no requirement to provide clone copy of Micro SD Card to the petitioner. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 17. It is settled preposition of law that the accused has got right to obtain copy of charge-sheet along with the documents appended thereto, so as to exercise his right of defence in an effective manner during trial and to explain his conduct relating to such documents. Needless to mention here that right to fair trial is flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and during trial the Court is obliged to verify mechanism to enable the accused to satisfy himself about the genuineness and credibility of the contents of the memory Cards/Pandrive, which is also a document in an electronic form. 18. In the instant case on the basis of statements given by PW- 16, certain doubts have been raised by the accused-petitioner with regard to genuineness of the recording copied in CD provided to the petitioner and it has been asserted that possibility of some changes during the exercise of copying the Data from memory Card to CD cannot be ruled out. 19. In the case of P. Gopalkrishnan Alias Dileep (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “37. Considering the aforementioned Reports, it can be concluded that the contents of the memory card would be a “matter” and the memory card itself would be a “substance” and hence, the contents of the memory card would be a “document”. 38. 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. 38. 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/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. 39. We do not wish to dilate further nor should we be understood to have examined the question of relevancy of the contents of the memory card/pen-drive or for that matter the proof and admissibility thereof. The only question that we have examined in this appeal is: whether the contents of the memory card/pen-drive referred to in the chargesheet or the police report submitted to Magistrate under Section 173 of the 1973 Code, need to be furnished to the accused if the prosecution intends to rely on the same by virtue of Section 207 of the 1973 Code?” 20. In the case of Radheshyam (supra), which has also arisen from the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, this Court has observed and has held as under:- “5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.08.2022 in the case of Sanwarmal Raigar Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition)No. 3313/2020 and also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 . 7. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition)No. 3313/2020 and also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161 . 7. The Hon’ble Apex in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan (Supra) has dealt with the question raised in the petition as under: “Whether it is open to the Court to decline the request of the Accused to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of the subject memory card/pendrive in the form of video footage/clipping concerning the alleged incident/occurrence of rape on the ground that it would impinge upon the privacy, dignity and identity of the victim involved in the stated offences and moreso because of the possibility of misuse of such cloned copy by the Accused (which may attract other independent offences under the 2000 Act and the 1860 Code) ?” 8. After considering the different provisions of the statute including the Evidence Act in para 32 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court decided the said issue as under:- “It is crystal clear that all documents including "electronic record" produced for the inspection of the Court alongwith the police report on 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.” 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken the same view in the case of Sanwarmal Raigar (Supra) and held that no prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecution, if the prosecution provides the cloned copy of the C.D to the accused petitioner. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken the same view in the case of Sanwarmal Raigar (Supra) and held that no prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecution, if the prosecution provides the cloned copy of the C.D to the accused petitioner. The controversy involved in this case has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Gopalkrishnan (supra) which has been followed by this Court in the case of Sanwarmal Raigar (Supra) and it has been held as under:- “Evidently, no prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecution, if the prosecution provides the cloned copy of the C.D. to the accused petitioner rather non- supply would impinge upon Constitutional right of the petitioner. Consequently that portion of the impugned order stands, hereby, quashed, whereby, the Court below had refused the prayer of the petitioner to have a cloned copy of the C.D. and the petition stands allowed keeping in view the right of the accused to be put on fair trial.” 10. Hence, under these circumstances, this Court has no reason to take a different view on the issue which has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan (Supra) and followed by this Court in the case of Sanwarmal Raigar (Supra).” 21. In the case of Mukesh Kumar Meena (supra), this Court has held as under:- “Having appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I am of the firm opinion that as the prosecution has placed reliance on the voice recording saved in the memory card, it cannot be allowed to adopt the policy of pick, choose and segregate in the voice data available in the disk. If at all, the memory card and the recordings made therein are to be admitted in evidence, then transcription of the entire recording has to be brought on record so that no prejudice is caused to the defence. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.7.2017 is quashed and set aside. C.B.I. is given an option to either furnish the entire transcription of the voice recordings saved in the memory card or else, the trial Court shall exclude the transcription and the memory card from consideration while deciding the case finally.” 22. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.7.2017 is quashed and set aside. C.B.I. is given an option to either furnish the entire transcription of the voice recordings saved in the memory card or else, the trial Court shall exclude the transcription and the memory card from consideration while deciding the case finally.” 22. Needless to mention here that primary goal of the criminal justice system is to ensure fair trial, which also includes to give complete opportunity to the accused. 23. An important feature of this opportunity is to provide copies of every piece of evidence to the accused in the same form, in which it has been relied upon by the prosecution, so that the accused may not be deprived of his right to prepare his defence in an effective manner. 24. In the light of above discussion and in order to provide a fair opportunity of defence to the petitioner and looking to the fact that no prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecution, if the prosecution provides clone copy of Micro SD Card to the accused- petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the respondent-CBI to provide clone copy of Memory Card as relied upon by the CBI against the petitioner. 25. In view of the above, the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Court below is set aside. 26. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of in the light of the directions given hereinabnove.