1 CGHC010324112025 2026:CGHC:41299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 936 of 2025 Shravan Kumar Bareth S/o Budhram Bareth Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Pacheda Janjgir, P.S. Pacheda, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Central Bureau Of Investigation Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Superintendent Of Police, ACB, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava and Ms. Arya Shrivastava, Advocates. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2/CBI : Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (21st September, 2026) This revision has been preferred under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the legality and validity of the 2 order dated 11.7.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by Special Judge (constituted for trial of CBI cases), Raipur in CBI Special Case No.3/2016 whereby the application filed by the petitioner/accused to permit him to cross-examine the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) on the basis of CD provided to him for the first time on 14.3.2018, has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner and co-accused were allegedly caught red handed by CBI while they were taking bribe. Prior to trap proceedings, conversations between the complainant and the accused persons as well as between the accused persons were recorded in three Micro SD cards. While filing charge sheet, those voice files, which are said to be 12 in number, were copied in two separate non-rewritable CDs and 01-01 copied CD was provided to the petitioner as well as to the co-accused for the first time after about two years from the date of filing of charge sheet. After filing of charge sheet, the trial is on progress before the Special Court. During examination of witnesses, the petitioner/accused filed an application for permitting him to cross-examine the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) on the basis of CD provided to him for the first time, however, by the impugned order dated 11.7.2025, the said application has been rejected. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged conversations were recorded in three Micro SD cards, in which total 12 voice files were there, and those 12 voice files were copied in two non- 3 rewritable CDs, and both the accused persons were provided each CD after about two years from the date of filing of charge sheet, however, all three Micro SD cards were submitted before the Special Court along with charge sheet. Though all 12 voice files were said to have been copied in a single CD but in fact, all voice files were not provided in that CD. Learned counsel further submits that it is evident from the order sheet dated 12.7.2022 of the Special Court that on the said date when all three Micro SD cards and CD supplied to the co-accused were played before the Special Court, then it was found that there is difference in time duration of the voice files present in three Micro SD cards and voice files present in CD provided to the petitioner/accused, which has been observed by the Special Court itself. Therefore, on account of an application being filed by the accused persons, in compliance of order passed by the Special Court on 12.7.2022, voice files of all three Micro SD cards were copied in 3-3 separate CDs for both the accused persons and those 3-3 CDs were provided to them. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed aforesaid application to prove the fact that CBI has manipulated the conversations present in the Micro SD cards, which were not present in the CD provided to the accused persons, but the same has been rejected by the Special Court on the ground that copy of voice files provided to the petitioner in the form of CD were not kept in safe custody as it was in possession of the petitioner, therefore, the possibility of it being tampered with cannot be ruled out, which is completely perverse as copy of voice files were 4 provided to the petitioner in a non-rewritable CD, therefore, it cannot be tampered with, rather the Special Court itself has observed in its order dated 12.7.2022 that there is difference in the time duration of voice files present in three Micro SD cards and copy of CD first time provided to the accused persons. Hence it is necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine TLO on the basis of copy of CD first time provided to him. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2001 SC 1158; Mrs. Kalyani Bhaskar Vs. Mrs. MS Sampoornam, Appeal (Crl.) No.1293/2006, judgment dated 11.12.2006; T. Nagappa Vs. YR Muralidhar, Appeal (Crl.) No.707/2008, judgment dated 24.4.2008; VK Sasikala Vs. State represented by Superintendent of Police, Criminal Appeal No.1497/2012; judgment dated 27.9.2012; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others, Civil Appeal No.20825-20826/2017, judgment dated 14.7.2020; Sameer Sandhir Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal Nos. 4718-4719/2024, judgment dated 23.5.2025; and R. Ganesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 471. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/CBI would submit that the subject conversations were recorded in three Micro SD cards, which contained total 12 voice files i.e. 8 voice files in first Micro SD card, 3 voice files in second Micro SD card and 1 voice file in third Micro SD card. All the voice files were copied in two 5 separate CDs for each of the accused persons which were supplied to them. Subsequently, on objection being raised by the accused persons that three voice files provided to them are repeated voice files and in fact, only 09 voice files have been provided to them, in compliance of the order dated 12.7.2022 all the voice files present in Micro SD cards 1, 2 & 3 were copied in 3-3 separate CDs for each of the accused persons and supplied to them. Learned counsel further submits that so far as observation made by learned Special Court in the order dated 12.7.2022 with regard to difference of time duration in voice files, is concerned, it is because of repetition of three voice files in the CDs first time supplied to the accused persons. Therefore, there occurred some difference in time duration in the voice files of CD which was initially supplied to the accused persons. 4.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.2/CBI would next submit that deposition of PW-13 Pankaj Kumar Khandekar (TLO) has been recorded and copy of his deposition has already been filed by the petitioner/accused, which shows that while recording his deposition, all three original Micro SD cards were played in the open Court and thereafter, his cross-examination was conducted. Since cross- examination of TLO has been done on the basis of original Micro SD cards in the open Court, there is no need to provide further opportunity to the petitioner/accused to get him cross-examined on the basis of CD provided to him at the first instance as the same has already been held to be containing three repeated voice files by the learned Special 6 Court. In view of above, the impugned order dated 11.7.2025 passed by learned Special Court being strictly in accordance with law, calls for no interference by this Court and the instant revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that charge sheet in the instant case was filed before the learned Special Court on 3.9.2016 and for the first time copy of the voice files in the form of CD was supplied to the petitioner on 14.3.2018. Learned Special Court in the order dated 12.7.2022 itself observed that the voice files present in Micro SD cards 2 & 3 have been supplied to the accused persons in CD, but there is difference in time duration of the voice files. Referring to para 127 of cross-examination of PW-13 Pankaj Kumar Khandekar (TLO), he submits that TLO himself has admitted in his cross-examination that voice files present in Micro SD card 2, which were found irrelevant for the prosecution, were not transcribed. Being so, it is necessary for the petitioner/accused to prove his legal defence that there is manipulation in the conversation/voice files present in the Micro SD cards. Therefore, the present revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 11.7.2025 of learned Special Court is liable to be set aside, and the petitioner/accused be permitted for cross-examination of PW-13 Pankaj Kumar Khandekar (TLO) on the basis of CD supplied to the petitioner for the first time. 7 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No.1 has duly assisted the Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The question which arises for consideration in the present revision is whether the petitioner/accused can be denied an opportunity to cross-examine PW-13 Pankaj Kumar Khandekar (TLO) with reference to the CD which was admittedly supplied to him for the first time, merely on the ground that the said CD remained in his possession and, therefore, its genuineness or possibility of tampering could subsequently be questioned. 09. At the outset, it is significant to note that the CD in question was not a document independently procured or introduced by the petitioner/accused. It was admittedly supplied to him by the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the opportunity to rely upon or confront the prosecution witnesses with the contents of a CD which itself formed part of the material supplied to him by the prosecution. The apprehension regarding the possibility of tampering, by itself, cannot be a ground to altogether deny the accused an opportunity of cross-examination, particularly when the prosecution itself is in possession of the original Micro SD cards from which the disputed voice files were copied. More importantly, the record discloses an admitted discrepancy between the original Micro SD cards and the CD initially supplied to the petitioner/accused. Though the said CD was 8 represented to contain copies of all the 12 voice files, but it is not in dispute that it contained only 09 voice files, apart from three repeated voice files, and that there was also a difference in the duration of the voice files. The said discrepancy is not a matter created by the petitioner for the first time during cross-examination; rather, it had already come to the notice of the learned Special Court while dealing with the application on 12.7.2022. 10. Further, PW-13 Pankaj Kumar Khandekar (TLO), in para 127 of his cross-examination, has admitted that the voice files contained in Micro SD card 2, which according to the prosecution were considered irrelevant, were not transcribed. This admission assumes significance because the petitioner seeks to rely upon the discrepancy between the original electronic material and the copy supplied to him for putting forward his defence. Whether the omitted conversations were relevant or irrelevant to the prosecution, is essentially a matter which the defence is entitled to test in cross-examination. The defence cannot ordinarily be compelled to accept the prosecution's assessment as to which portion of the recorded conversation is relevant and which is not. 11. The right of cross-examination is not confined merely to questioning a witness on the basis of the material which the prosecution chooses to rely upon. Where a document or electronic record has been supplied to the accused as part of the prosecution case and the accused seeks to confront a prosecution witness with the 9 same for testing the correctness, completeness or authenticity of the prosecution version, such opportunity assumes particular significance when the document is capable of having a bearing upon the defence of the accused. 12. In the present case, the petitioner does not seek to introduce an entirely new piece of evidence at the stage of cross-examination. He seeks only to confront PW-13 with the CD which was supplied to him by the prosecution as part of copy of the charge-sheet and which, according to the petitioner, differs in material particulars from the original Micro SD cards produced before the Court. Thus, the proposed cross-examination is directly connected with the prosecution material itself and cannot be characterised as an attempt to introduce extraneous evidence. 13. The reasoning adopted by the learned Special Court that the CD was not kept in safe custody and remained in the exclusive possession of the petitioner, and therefore there exists a possibility of tampering, does not, in the facts of the present case, furnish sufficient justification for completely shutting out the proposed cross-examination. The issue of genuineness or possible alteration of the CD is a matter which can be tested by appropriate evidence and, if necessary, by comparison with the original Micro SD cards admittedly available on the record. A mere apprehension of tampering cannot be converted into a presumption that the document has, in fact, been tampered with. The 10 subsequent supply of copies of the voice files from all three Micro SD cards pursuant to the order dated 12.7.2022 also cannot, by itself, extinguish the petitioner's right to confront the TLO with the earlier CD supplied as part of copy of the charge-sheet. The subsequent CD and the earlier CD constitute two different sets of material for the limited purpose of testing whether there was any discrepancy in the material originally supplied to the accused. In fact, the existence of such discrepancy makes the proposed cross-examination more, rather than less, relevant to the defence. 14. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, including Bipin Shantilal Panchal, Kalyani Bhaskar, T. Nagappa, V.K. Sasikala, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar and Sameer Sandhir, though rendered in different factual contexts, reiterate the broader principle that the accused must be afforded a meaningful and fair opportunity to defend himself and to test the prosecution evidence. The question of admissibility, authenticity or evidentiary weight of an electronic record is distinct from the question whether the accused should be permitted to confront a prosecution witness with such material during cross- examination. 15. The apprehension of prejudice to the prosecution is also not well founded. There is no likelihood of any prejudice being caused to the prosecution by permitting such cross-examination. The prosecution would have full opportunity to explain the discrepancy and, if 11 necessary, to confront the petitioner with the original Micro SD cards. On the other hand, refusal to permit the proposed cross-examination may materially curtail the petitioner's opportunity to establish his defence, particularly when the alleged discrepancy itself relates to the prosecution-supplied electronic material. 16. At the same time, this Court is not expressing any opinion at this stage regarding the genuineness, authenticity, completeness or evidentiary value of the CD initially supplied to the petitioner. The learned Trial Court shall remain free to determine those questions in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence brought on record. If any dispute regarding the integrity or authenticity of the CD arises, the learned Trial Court may adopt such procedure as is permissible in law, including comparison with the original Micro SD cards and consideration of such other evidence as may be legally admissible. 17. Thus, considering the admitted discrepancy between the original Micro SD cards and the CD initially supplied to the petitioner, the admission of PW-13 regarding non-transcription of certain voice files, the fact that the disputed CD was itself supplied to the petitioner by the prosecution, and the fundamental requirement of affording the accused a fair and meaningful opportunity to defend himself, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner ought not to have been denied the opportunity to cross-examine PW-13 on the basis of the said CD. 12 18. For the reasons stated above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.7.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Special Judge (constituted for trial of CBI cases), Raipur in CBI Special Case No.3/2016 is hereby set aside. The petitioner/accused shall be permitted to further cross-examine PW-13 Pankaj Kumar Khandekar (TLO) on the basis of the CD initially supplied to him as part of copy of the charge-sheet, subject to such safeguards as the learned Trial Court may consider appropriate in accordance with law. 19. It is, however, clarified that permitting such cross-examination shall not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court regarding the authenticity, genuineness, completeness or evidentiary value of the said CD. All such questions are left open for consideration by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.09.24 17:46:45 +0530