$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010362332026 + CRL.M.C. 5753/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24008/2026 CRL.M.A. 24009/2026 SUDHIR CHADHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Mr. Oleander Donald Singh, Mr. Pratham Sadh versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 09.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SC-RC), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.844/2017 arising out of the FIR No. 106/2017, under section Sections 376/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 PC (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Paharganj, titled ‘State v. Sudhir Chadha’. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the investigation of the abovementioned FIR No. 106/2017, the mobile phone and laptop of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:21:00 petitioner were seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which extracted the electronic data and supplied the same in the form of Pen Drive exhibited as Ex. P-1. Vide order dated 19.01.2026, on the request of the prosecution, the learned Trial Court directed the Investigating Officer to examine the electronic data contained in Ex. P-1 and submit an Analysis Report. Pursuant thereto, the Investigating Officer filed the Analysis Report before the learned Trial Court, which was taken on record. During the course of defence evidence, the petitioner, while deposing as DW-1, sought to rely upon the Analysis Report. However, the learned Trial Court declined to exhibit the same. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 294 CrPC seeking admission of the genuineness and marking of the Analysis Report, submitting that it had been prepared by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the directions of the learned Trial Court and formed part of the judicial record. Vide the impugned order dated 09.07.2026, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the Analysis Report was not substantive evidence, and was based upon the contents of Pen Drive Ex. P-1 already proved on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the pendrive has been already exhibited in the learned Trial Court, but its analysis report, which is a separate document, has neither been proved by the prosecution nor has the petitioner/accused been allowed by the learned Trial Court to prove the same. He submits that as per Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) where any document is filed in the Court by the prosecution or the accused, either of the parties may admit or deny the genuineness of such document. Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: “294. No formal proof of certain documents.—(1) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:21:00 Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as be prescribed by the State Government. (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Analysis Report of the Pen Drive is favourable to the petitioner/accused and, therefore, the petitioner seeks to prove the same. He further submits that since the Pen Drive has already been exhibited, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petitioner is permitted to prove the Analysis Report, which is based on the contents of the Pen Drive. Though the contents of the Pen Drive cannot ordinarily be read separately, in the present case, the Pen Drive already stands exhibited before the learned Trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence has already been concluded and now the matter is fixed for final arguments and during the arguments, he be permitted to rely upon the analysis report which is a part of the pendrive (Ex-P1). 7. In such circumstances, petition is allowed and the contents of the pendrive i.e., analysis report, be also read into evidence as Ex-P1 along with the pendrive Ex-P1. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:21:00 8. With these observations the petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 9. Parties to appear before the learned Trial Court on 10.08.2026. 10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 7, 2026/b/sd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 11:21:00