Orissa High Court
Biswajit Pattnaik vs State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Party on 16 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4211 of 2024
Biswajit Pattnaik ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Manas Kumar Chand
-versus-
State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Party
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
16.09.2025 Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The present application has been filed at the instance of the accused-Petitioner, thereby invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 07.10.2024 passed in Crl. Tr. No.156 of 2019 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Bhubaneswar. Order dated 07.10.2024, which has been assailed in the present application at Annexure-4, has been passed on an application filed by the accused-Petitioner before the learned trial Court on 07.10.2024 with a prayer for a direction to the Page 1 of 4. prosecution to produce the Whatsapp and Facebook chats between the victim and the accused, CDRs of the mobile phones of both the Victim and the accused and the bank transaction details between them.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that in course of investigation certain materials have been collected which are likely to be used against the Petitioner in course of trial. He further submitted that although the Petitioner is entitled to copies of such documents, however, the same have not been provided to the Petitioner. As a result of which, it is contended before this Court that non-supply of such documents would cause serious prejudice to the Petitioner. He further contended that the accused-Petitioner has a right to know as to what the documents are which are likely to be used against him by the prosecution, so that he can prepare a defence accordingly. It was also contended that unless the Petitioner is provided with the materials collected during investigation, the trial without such documents would never be a fair trial. On such grounds learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order dated 07.10.2024 is unsustainable in law and accordingly, the same should be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the prayer made in the present application. He further contended that the Addl. P.P. had filed a written objection to the petition dated 07.10.2024, therein objecting to the prayer made by the Petitioner for supply of Whatsapp and Facebook chats between the victim and the accused, CDRs of the mobile phones of both the Victim and the accused. It was specifically argued that the investigation of the case has already been completed in the meantime and a charge-sheet has Page 2 of 4. already been filed and, at the moment, the case is posted for trial. Learned counsel for the State at this juncture contended that the present application is an attempt by the Petitioner to somehow prolong the trial. As such, it was argued that the prayer made in the petition dated 07.10.2024 has no relevance to the trial, therefore, the present CRLMC application is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed the larger interest of justice.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, further on a close scrutiny of order dated 07.10.2024, this Court observes that the learned trial Court has rejected the petition of the Petitioner dated 07.10.2024, wherein a prayer was made for a direction to produce the Whatsapp and Facebook chats between the victim and the accused, CDRs details of the mobile phones of both the Victim and the accused as well as the bank transaction details between them. Although learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the direction of the Addl. D.G. of Police, CID CB, Cuttack such contents were seized, however, there is nothing on record to establish the aforesaid fact. Moreover, learned counsel for the State contended that the prosecution has not relied upon such materials in the charge-sheet. The procedure laid down in Cr.P.C. provides that whatever materials were collected against the Petitioner, basing upon which a charge- sheet has been filed, shall be provided to the accused in the shape of police paper. In the aforesaid context, this Court would like to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically Page 3 of 4. observed that omission to produce the best evidence, which was electronic evidence in that case, which was withheld by the prosecution, would rendered the prosecution case unreliable. The judgment further provides that the information which is accessible to the investigating agency and if the investigating agency fails to produce such evidence, an adverse influence can very well be drawn by the learned trial Court. In view of the aforesaid position, if such evidence is not produced, it is open to the Petitioner to make a prayer before the learned trial Court to draw an adverse reference on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tomaso Bruno (supra). In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 07.10.2024.
7. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is disposed of with the observation made hereinabove.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4.
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Sep-2025 10:38:38