ASHAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused has filed this petition under section 482 of CrPC against the order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Datia in ST No. 16/2013 rejecting the application under section 91 of CrPC filed by the petitioner/accused for supplying the copy of the CD which has been made the basis of the prosecution case and produced by the respondent/State along with the charge sheet for proving the case.

(2.) As alleged by the prosecution, in brief the facts of the case are that on 1.10.2012 at 7:30 prosecutrix "s" was raped by the accused Abhishek Tripathi, Kaushal Kishore Goswami and five others. Besides the rape a video film of the incident was prepared by Sandesh Yadav and Abhishek Tripathi by their mobile. A report to this effect was lodged on 6.10.2012, on the basis of which, FIR was registered and after investigation the charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons under sections 376(d), 377, 363, 366, 341, 342, 294, 323, 506 -B, 201, 190, 292 of IPC, under Sections 66, 67, 67(a), 67(b) of I.T. Act. and under sections 4, 6 of Protection of Children Sexual Harassment Act, 2012. At the stage of charge, an application under section 9.1 of CrPC for supplying the video CD, on the basis of which, a transcript panchnama has been prepared and has been produced on record along with the charge sheet but copy of the video CD has not been supplied by the prosecution under section 207 of CrPC was submitted before the trial Court. The aforesaid application was rejected vide impugned order stating that the CD has been sent for examination and has not been received back and whenever the CD will be received back it would be given to the accused persons. In addition to this, the trial Court has further observed that Sessions Judge has directed the Court to decide the case within 45 days and so the case cannot be stayed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment V.K. Sasikala v. State, 2013 CrLJ 177 has contended that the impugned order being not based on proper reasonings deserves to be set aside.