1 2026:CGHC:6866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 139 of 2026 Gulab Soni S/o Brindavan Soni Aged About 62 Years R/o Old Bus Stand, Pendra, P.S. Pendra, District- G P M (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pendra, District- G P M (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava and Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Advocates. For Respondent/State. : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate and Ms. Arya Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, leanred Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Pendra Road, District – Pendra (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 01/2026. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant is facing trial in Special Sessions Case No. 01/2026 before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Pendra Road, District – GPM (C.G.). As reflected from the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 order sheets, the applicant had submitted an application requesting to supply of electronic devices/evidences including the pen drive and video recording as well as the FSL report. It is further reflected that the pen drive was sent for FSL examination. Despite the above, no copies of the said electronic devices or related material were supplied to the applicant. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the applicant, which amounts to a miscarriage of justice. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 30.11.2025 in connection with offences punishable under Section 64 and Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4 and 5 of the POCSO Act. It is contended that on 05.01.2026, the learned trial Court passed an order whereby the applicant sought supply of electronic evidence, namely a 16 GB silver-coloured pen drive, which forms part of the charge-sheet as well as the case diary. However, despite repeated demand, the said pen drive was not supplied to the applicant. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 05.01.2026, recorded that the said pen drive had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and, therefore, was not available. Consequently, it was directed that as and when the FSL report is received, a copy thereof along with the pen drive shall be supplied to the applicant. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on 21.01.2026, when the statement of the victim was recorded by the 3 learned trial Court, a similar prayer was again made on behalf of the applicant seeking supply of the pen drive and the FSL report, so as to enable effective cross-examination of the victim. However, the learned trial Court, placing reliance upon the provisions of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, proceeded to record the evidence of the victim and compelled the applicant to cross-examine the victim in the absence of the pen drive and the FSL report. The next date has been fixed for recording the statement of the mother of the victim and other witnesses on 09.02.2026. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is illegal, perverse, erroneous, and liable to be set aside/quashed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 has, in fact, been passed in favour of the applicant, as the learned trial Court acknowledged that the pen drive demanded by the applicant was not available, having been sent to the FSL for examination. It is further submitted that though the order dated 21.01.2026 may have caused inconvenience to the defence, the applicant has already cross-examined the victim under protest in the absence of the pen drive and the FSL report, and the said order dated 21.01.2026 has not been specifically challenged in the present revision. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. It is an admitted fact that the pen drive in question forms part of the charge-sheet and that the applicant had sought its supply on 05.01.2026. However, the learned trial Court was unable to supply the 4 same as the pen drive had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and the FSL report was awaited. In view thereof, the learned trial Court rightly directed that the pen drive along with a copy of the FSL report be supplied to the applicant immediately upon receipt from the FSL. 9. So far as the order dated 21.01.2026 is concerned, it is evident that although a similar demand was raised by the applicant, the statement of the victim was recorded in the absence of the FSL report and the pen drive. At this stage, it cannot be said that the right of cross- examination of the applicant has been irretrievably prejudiced. Even though the evidence of the victim has already been recorded, the applicant is at liberty to move an appropriate application under Section 311 of the CrPC seeking recall of the witness, after the FSL report is made available and the pen drive is returned to the learned trial Court. Since the learned trial Court had already directed the prosecution on 05.01.2026 to supply the same, and as the order dated 21.01.2026 is not under challenge, no interference is warranted at this stage. 10. Hence, it is hope and trust that the trial Court before proceeding further with the trial, should ensure that the FSL Report and the pen drive in question is available before the trial Court and be supplied to the applicant, so as to afford a fair opportunity to the applicant to defend himself. 11. Accordingly, the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur (C.G.), is directed to submit the FSL report along with the pen drive to the learned trial Court within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, and for one week the trial of 5 the applicant shall be kept in abeyance. 12. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is disposed of. 13. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. 14. Certified copy today. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar