The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused cannot be denied access to certified or attested copies of documents forming part of the chargesheet even after the trial has commenced. This ruling comes in response to a petition challenging the denial of such documents, ensuring that an accused person’s right to a fair trial is upheld.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, while granting relief to the petitioners, stated:
"Even assuming that a copy of the hard disk in question was supplied to the accused persons at the stage of Section 207 Cr. P.C. proceedings, still the right of the petitioner to ask for the certified copy of documents which form part of the chargesheet cannot be negated."
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Declares Serious Fraud Allegations as Non-Arbitrable
The Court acknowledged that documents forming part of the chargesheet might get lost even after being initially supplied to the accused. Therefore, denying an accused a certified or attested copy at their own expense would amount to a violation of natural justice.
"Non-supply of a copy of such documents will deprive the accused persons of a meaningful opportunity to put forth their defence, including cross-examination. Such a denial would thus, mean a negation of the principle of natural justice," the Court emphasized.
At the same time, the Court cautioned that while considering such requests, the judiciary must guard against frivolous applications that may be intended to delay the trial.
Background of the Case
The accused had challenged a trial court order allowing the prosecution to recall a witness for the purpose of exhibiting a hard disk as evidence. During the proceedings, the accused requested the trial court to provide a copy of the hard disk and defer the examination of the witness until they received it.
Read Also:- Courts Cannot Interfere in Employee Assessments Unless Bias or Prejudice Is Evident: Delhi High Court
The defence argued that the witness was only partially re-examined, and further proceedings were deferred because the hard disk could not be played due to the absence of a data cable. It was further submitted that a copy of the hard disk had not been provided to the accused until that date.
On the contrary, the prosecution maintained that all documents forming part of the chargesheet, including the hard disk, had been provided to the accused persons. However, the Court noted that none of the trial court’s order sheets specifically mentioned that a cloned copy of the hard disk had been supplied.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The High Court observed that:
"It is not a case where the petitioners have delayed the trial. Rather, the State first sought to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to prove a second sanction order after the first was held to be vitiated."
The Court highlighted that the accused were not at fault for the delay and pointed out that their request for a copy of the hard disk was reasonable. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in P. Gopal Krishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr., the Court reiterated that electronic records such as memory cards and hard disks are considered documents under the law. The ruling in that case had established that:
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Assessee Must Receive Notice Before Extending Seizure Period Under CGST Act
"If the prosecution is relying on electronic records, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy to enable them to present an effective defence. However, in cases involving privacy concerns, inspection may suffice."
The High Court concluded that since privacy or security concerns were not an issue in this case, the accused had a legitimate right to receive a cloned copy of the hard disk. The trial court was directed to furnish a cloned copy of the hard disk to the accused at their expense, with assistance from IT experts if necessary.
"The fundamental principle of natural justice is that material sought to be used against the accused must be provided to them by the prosecution to enable effective defence."
Additionally, the trial court was directed to defer the cross-examination of the prosecution witness until the cloned copy of the hard disk was supplied to the accused.
Case Title: GOPAL MISHRA & ANR v. STATE
