Gauhati High Court
Shahidul Islam vs The State Of Assam on 21 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010020082025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./164/2025
SHAHIDUL ISLAM
S/O LATE IBRAHIM ALI
R/O HOWLY TOWN,
WARD NO. 1,
P.S.HOWLY DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
PIN-781316
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, B DAS,MR. A M AHMED,MR. D GAGAI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 21-02-2025
1. By this common order this Court proposes to dispose of
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.57/2025 and Crl.Pet No.164/2025 as both the cases
arise out of common case i.e. PRC No.329/2023 and involves common
Page No.# 2/5
question of law.
2. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.
No. 57/2025 and Mr. A.M Bora, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Gogoi,
learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.Pet. No. 164/2025. Also heard Mr. J.A.
Hasan, learned special public prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2025 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bajali, Pathsala in PRC Case no.
329/2023 whereby, the prayer of the petitioners to furnish them the copies of
following electronic documents, which were forwarded to the Trial Court after
completion of investigation along with the charge-sheet U/S 173(5) of the
Cr.P.C, was rejected:-
a. In Serial No.65-Contents of Pendrive
b. In Serial No.66-Contents of Hard Disk
c. In Serial No.71-Contents of Laptop
d. In Serial No.104,105 & 106- Contents of Voice Samples recorded.
i. In serial No.6 contents of Audio Recording
ii. In serial No. 18 contents of Pen drive
iii. In serial No. 25 contents of Pen drive
iv. In serial No. 33 contents of Hard Disk
v. In serial No. 34 Copy of Register
vi. In serial No. 39 contents of Pen Drive.
4. The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that the Trial
Court by the impugned order has rejected the prayer for furnishing the copies of
Page No.# 3/5
aforesaid electronic documents, merely on the ground that the petitioners are
not entitled to get copies of material object. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the learned Trial Court had erred in observing
that the petitioners are seeking the copies of material object and thereby, made
an observation in the impugned order that the accused persons are allowed to
locally inspect the material object.
5. The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that the
petitioners are only seeking copies of the electronic document, on which the
prosecution has relied upon and which are forwarded along with the charge-
sheet U/S 173(5) Cr.P.C.
6. The learned counsels for the petitioners have also cited a ruling of the
Apex Court in case of P. Gopalkrishnana @ Dileep v. State of Kerela and another,
(2020) 9 SCC 161, wherein it was observed that the accused persons are
entitled to get copies of the statements and documents accompanying the
police records, which the prosecution may use against them during trial. Non-
furnishing of such documents on the ground that it is voluminous is not
applicable in case if the documents of which copies are sought are electronic
documents.
7. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. J.A.
Hasan, has fairly submitted that the prosecution side has no objection if the
copies of aforesaid electronic documents, as sought for by the petitioners, are
furnished to them. However, he also submits that it is the duty of the Trial Court
to furnish the said documents, however, required storage device/electronic
gadgets like Hard-disk, pen-drive etc. shall have to be arranged for transmitting
of the copies of the electronic documents as sought for by the petitioners.
Page No.# 4/5
8. It is not in dispute that under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., it is for the
Magistrate, before whom the charge-sheet has been laid, to furnish the copies
of documents forwarded to him along with the police report U/S 173(5) of the
Cr.P.C. Same has also been clarified by the Apex Court in judgment relied upon
by the petitioners i.e. P. Gopal Krishnana @ Dileep v. State of Kerela and
another, (supra)
9. The statutory provisions as contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C. is
unambiguous to the effect that such copies are to be supplied to the accused
persons free of cost.
10. In view of the above, it is the statutory obligation on the part of the
Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was submitted to furnish the copies
of documents (including electronic documents) to the petitioners. The
concerned Court shall have to make provisions for arranging the electronic
devices like hard-disk, pen-drive, in which copies of the electronic documents
may be furnished after digital transmissions of the same from the Hard disk/pen
drive etc submitted along with the charge-sheet.
11. The Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bajali, Pathsala is
directed to make necessary arrangement for electronic device in which the
copies of the electronic documents which were as sought for by the petitioners
may be furnished to them. Funds for the same shall have to be arranged for
from the budgetary allocation against office expenses made to the concerned
Court. The Trial Court is directed to furnish the copies of the electronic
document as sought for by the petitioners.
12. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision petition No. 57/2025 and
Page No.# 5/5
Criminal Petition No. 164/2025 are allowed and the impugned order dated
04.01.2025 passed in PRC Case No. 329/2023 is hereby set aside.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
