Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34858 of 2018 Applicant :- Aditya Narain Singh @ Raghav Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Sachan,Ashwani Kumar Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. The present application has been filed against the order dated 12.7.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge- 24 Kanpur Nagar by which that court dismissed the criminal revision No.124/2018.
2. By the order dated 12.7.2018, the learned revisional court had upheld the order dated 22.9.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. The grievance of the applicant appears to be that while the other documents were supplied to the applicant at the stage of proceeding under Section 207 Cr.P.C., copy of the CCTV footage that is also a part of the case diary and which according to the learned counsel for the applicant is the only material that may implicate the present applicant had not been supplied to him.
4. The applicant further claims to have filed an application to be supplied such recording of CCTV footage on 22.9.2017 itself which came to be rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the reasoning that the case had already been committed to the court of session and therefore no compliance could be made under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. The aforesaid reasoning given by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found acceptance of the learned Addl. Session Judge, Court No.24, Kanpur Nagar.
6. Relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Tyagi Vs. CBI reported in 2017 (4) SCC (Page 490), learned counsel for the applicant submits that the right of the evidence could not be prejudiced in this manner. It is further submitted that the applicants were fully entitled to be supplied copy of the video recording and unless that recording is made available, the vital right of defence would stand completely impaired.
7. Learned AGA Sri Ankit Srivastava has opposed the present application. He submits that the impugned order does not suffer any infirmity inasmuch as it is not denied that the case had been committed to the court of Sessions before the application came to be filed by the applicant (to be supplied the copy of the recording of the CCTV camera).
8. Even if the submissions being made by learned AGA it is to be accepted it cannot be denied that the applicant otherwise had a right to be supplied copy of evidence being relied by the prosecution against him.
9. In this regard, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the trial court has not provided a copy of such evidence to the applicant on the reasoning that all evidence had been provided to the applicant at the stage under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
10. Since the applicant is an accused person and he claims that he does not have a copy of evidence being relied upon against him in the shape of recording of CCTV camera, in the interest of the fairness of trial it is leave open to the applicant to move a fresh application before the trial court to provide complete copy of the evidence in the shape of video recording of the CCTV camera that is being relied against the applicant.
11. If such application is filed within a period of two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order, it is expected that the learned court below shall make available such copy of evidence to the applicant duly certified by the prosecution agency within a period of one week thereafter.
12. The applicant shall be made available opportunity to cross examine the relevant witness on the strength of such evidence that may be made available to him.
13. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.9.2018 Gaurav Pal