[2025:RJ-JP:48805] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7828/2025 Pushkar Kumar Mittal S/o Late Krishan Kumar Mittal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Ward No.9, Kathumar Road, Khedli, Alwar. Presently Residing At 91, Nandpuri, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Add. Superintendent Of Police, A.C.B., Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Preeti Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 01/12/2025 Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 18.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application (43/2025) filed by the petitioner, seeking directions to provide the complete documents which were not supplied to the petitioner along with the charge- sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed serious error of law and facts by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Counsel submits that complete documents were not filed with the charge-sheet, even documents regarding sequence of custody of electronic evidence were not produced. Counsel submits that to prove the innocence [2025:RJ-JP:48805] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7828/2025] of the petitioner, it is necessary to get on record the complete copy of the charge-sheet. She submits that learned trial Court has dismissed the petitioner’s application in a very cursory manner without recording any cogent reasons and grounds. She thus, prays that the instant criminal misc. petition may be allowed and the impugned order being per se illegal and erroneous may be quashed and set aside. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and submits that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner after taking into consideration the material available on record. He submits that the impugned order is a reasoned one and therefore, warrants no interference from this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial Court has observed that the petitioner’s counsel appearing before the trial Court has already obtained the copy of charge-sheet along with documents in compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC and receipt thereof is available on record. Further, observed that the said application has been filed by the petitioner after a period of more than 4 years. The petitioner having remained silent for more than 4 years, cannot be permitted to raise such an objection at this belated stage. It has also been observed that the objections regarding non-filing of documents along with charge-sheet, photostat copies, non-filing of chain of custody documents, which can be fruitful for the accused, can be raised by the petitioner at the stage of arguments on [2025:RJ-JP:48805] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7828/2025] charge. The trial Court observed that while filing challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary under law to take a particular document on record. It is for the Court to consider that whether the document is admissible in evidence or not. In such circumstances, the trial Court observed that it would not be proper to direct the ACB to produce the documents on record. Having considered the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner, after considering all the aspects of the matter in detail and with due application of mind. It is also noted that the petitioner has filed the said application after a period of more than 4 years and at such belated stage, he cannot be permitted to raise any objection. The trial Court meticulously examined the material and recorded due reasons and grounds in the impugned order. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Court does not find any cogent and sustainable reason so as to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, this criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all grounds and defence before the trial court at appropriate stage. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki/-31