- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6917 CRL.P No. 101536 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101536 OF 2025 BETWEEN: IJAJAHMED S/O. KHAJASAB BANKAPUR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: KSRTC DRIVER, R/AT: MANTUR ROAD, SHEELA COLONY, HUBBALLI - 580 028. IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HUBBALLI TOWN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. GANAPATI S/O. VASANTSA HABIB, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT: HOUSE NO.153, LAKSHMI NAGR, 2ND CROSS, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. L.S.SULLAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.08.2023 PASSED ON APPLICATION AS FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 208 OF CR.P.C. PENDING BEFORE VTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI IN S.C. NO.5005/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 506, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6917 CRL.P No. 101536 of 2025 1860, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to quash the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, in S.C. No.5005/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the Investigating Officer to supply CCTV footage obtained from CWs.48 to 51 and CW.105. 2. The petitioner and other accused are facing trial in S.C. No.5005/2021 pending on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi for offences under Sections 302, 506 and 120B - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6917 CRL.P No. 101536 of 2025 read with Section 34 of IPC. Charge-sheet material are supplied to the petitioner in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. There are two pen drives which are also part of the charge-sheet in PF Nos.13/2021 and 14/2021. The said two pen drives contain CCTV footage recorded in the CCTV Camera affixed to the shop of CW.105-Nepalsingh Rajusingh Rathod and CW.65 Subhash Son of Champalal Gandhimatha. CW.105 has produced pen drives containing CCTV footage recorded in CCTC camera affixed to his shop and it was seized in the presence of CWs.50 and 51(Panchas) under mahazar and it is produced in PF No.13/2021. Similarly CW.65-Subhash son of Champalal Gandhimatha has produced pen drive containing CCTV footage of CCTC camera affixed to his shop to the Investigating officer which has been seized under mahazar in the presence of panchas-CWs.48 and 49 which is produced under PF No.14/2021. The petitioner being accused No.1 has sought copy of the said two pen drives produced under PF Nos.13 and 14/2021. The trial Court has rejected the said application observing that, the said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6917 CRL.P No. 101536 of 2025 pen drives is in sealed condition and after it is opened in the evidence of panchas, a copy will be furnished to the accused. The trial Court while passing the impugned order, at paragraph 9, has observed as under: “9. On careful reading of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused and learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the video footage/clipping contained in such memory card/pen drive being an electronic record as envisaged under Section 2(1)(T) of the 2000 Act is a document. It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Court that accused is entitle to have copies of the statement and documents accompanying the police report which the prosecution may use against him during the trial.” In the said paragraph, the learned trial Judge has opined that, the video footage/clipping contained in such memory card/pen drive being an electronic record as envisaged under Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is a document. The trial court further opined that the accused is entitled to have copy of the statement and documents accompanying the police report which the prosecution may use against him during - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6917 CRL.P No. 101536 of 2025 the trial. Even though the trial Court has observed as stated, but it did not make an effort to furnish a copy of two pen drives. The accused is entitled to the copy of the said pen drives as they are part of the charge-sheet under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The relevant witnesses to the said pen drives are CWs.50, 51, 105, 48, 49 and 65. The said pen drives will be opened and marked only in the evidence of the said witnesses. Furnishing of copy of the said pen drives cannot be deferred till examination of the said witnesses. The accused is entitled to a copy of the said pen drives as he has to know what is contained in it for the purpose of defending himself and for cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court ought to have examined CWs.48 to 51 first and get that pen drives marked and furnish a copy of the said pen drives to the accused. Instead of that, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking copy of the pen drives. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6917 CRL.P No. 101536 of 2025 3. In the result, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 208 of Cr.P.C. in S.C. No.5005/2021 pending on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, is set aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to examine CWs.48 to 51 and thereafter furnish copy of the pen drives to the accused. The accused should not be insisted for cross-examination of other witnesses prior to furnishing copy of the said two pen drives to the accused. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE Kmv CT-ASC