[2026:RJ-JP:22563] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9341/2022 Rajkumar Chaudhary S/o Shri Dayanand Chaudhary, R/o P.S Bhaloth, Dist. Buhana, Jhunjhunu, At Present R/o C-81 Durgapuri Machada, P.S. Harmada Dist. Jaipur City, at present Social Security Officer, Employee State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Jain Ms. Gayatri Korani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary-GA cum AAG Mr. Gaurav Gupta-Asstt.G.A JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/05/2026 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Case No. 20/2021 by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.P.C. for supplying the clone copy of the CD recording has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the instant petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the principal seat, Jodhpur in the case of Kishan Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. while deciding the S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 7905/2025 on 19.02.2026. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the [2026:RJ-JP:22563] (2 of 8) [CRLMP-9341/2022] order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5 Looking to the fact that the controversy involved in the present petition has already been set at rest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kishan Agarwal (Supra), held as under:- “The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is with regard to denial of access to the electronic material relied upon by the prosecution, namely cloned copies of the conversation with the hash value of the electronic record. Further the petitioner has sought the production of the original recording device and supply of complete recording and other material documents with regard to the seized amount. The controversy involved, therefore, requires examination of the legal position governing disclosure of electronic records and the rights of the accused in that regard. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1, has emphasised that the liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed except in accordance with due process of law and that fairness in trial necessarily includes fair disclosure of material collected during investigation. The Court observed that the statutory scheme under Section 207 Cr.P.C., places an obligation upon the prosecution to furnish documents forming part of the investigation record so as to enable the accused to effectively defend the case. Similarly, in V.K. Sasikala v. State, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the right of the accused to access documents forwarded to the Court by the investigating agency flows from the broader doctrine of a free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and such access must be ensured where denial would prejudice the defence. [2026:RJ-JP:22563] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-9341/2022] The judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sidhartha Vashisht (supra) and V.K. Sasikala (supra) were considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and Ors., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 161, wherein it was held that contents of electronic storage devices constitute electronic records and are “documents” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that, insofar as documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely are concerned, the investigating officer has no option but to forward all such documents to the Magistrate along with the police report. It was also held that Section 207 CrPC does not empower the Court to withhold any document submitted with the police report except where such document is voluminous. The Court further recognized the right of the accused to get the cloned copies of the contents of the memory card and pendrive as being mandated by Section 207 CrPC and being part of his right to a fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- "31........... Considering the aforementioned Reports, it can be concluded that the contents of the memory card would be a “matter” and the memory card itself would be a “substance” and hence, the contents of the memory card would be a “document”. 32. It is crystal clear that all documents including “electronic record” produced for the inspection of the Court alongwith the police report and which prosecution proposes to use against the accused must be furnished to the accused as per the mandate of Section 207 of the 1973 Code. The concomitant is that the contents of the memory card/pendrive must be furnished to the accused, which can be done in the form of cloned copy of the memory card/pendrive. It is cardinal that a person tried for such a serious offence should be furnished with all the material and evidence in advance, on which the prosecution proposes to rely against him during the trial. Any other view would not only impinge upon the statutory mandate contained in the 1973 Code, but also the right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [2026:RJ-JP:22563] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-9341/2022] 41. We are conscious of the fact that Section 207 of the 1973 Code permits withholding of document(s) by the Magistrate only if it is voluminous and for no other reason. If it is an “electronic record”, certainly the ground predicated in the second proviso in Section 207, of being voluminous, ordinarily, cannot be invoked and will be unavailable. We are also conscious of the dictum in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Satyen Bhowmick & Ors. wherein this Court has restated the cardinal principle that accused is entitled to have copies of the statements and documents accompanying the police report, which the prosecution may use against him during the trial. 44. In conclusion, we hold that the contents of the memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial. However, in cases involving issues such as of privacy of the complainant/witness or his/her identity, the Court may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial. The court may issue suitable directions to balance the interests of both sides.” The principle thus laid down by the Apex Court governs the set of facts of the present case as well, as the petitioner herein also seeks access to complete electronic material relied upon by the prosecution. The Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court, in Ganpat Sharma (supra), while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep (supra), observed that supply of an uncertified CD, not prepared through hash-value authentication, does not fulfill the statutory mandate. The Court held as under: “C. Non-Compliance with Section 230 BNSS – Supply of Documents 12. Section 230 of the BNSS mandates that in cases instituted on a police report, the Court shall, without delay, and in no case beyond fourteen days, furnish to the accused copies of all documents forwarded with the police report under Section 193(6) BNSS. [2026:RJ-JP:22563] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-9341/2022] 13. From the record, it emerges that although the order sheet dated 17.09.2025 records that copies of the charge-sheet “along with CD” were supplied, there is prima facie substance in the grievance that all documents forming part of the police report were not furnished, and that the supply was effected through the investigating agency without judicial verification or grant of reasonable time to the accused to ascertain completeness. 14. More importantly, where the prosecution case substantially rests upon electronic evidence, compliance with Section 230 BNSS assumes heightened significance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala, (2020) 9 SCC 161, has categorically held that the original memory card constitutes a document, and the accused is entitled to receive its authenticated clone copy prepared in accordance with law. Supply of an uncertified CD, not prepared through hashvalue authentication, does not fulfill the statutory mandate. 15. The furnishing of incomplete or legally unrecognised copies strikes at the very root of the accused’s right to effectively invoke the remedy of discharge under Section 250 BNSS.” A similar view was reiterated in Jaideep Mittal v. State of Rajasthan (supra), wherein the importance of ensuring fair access to electronic records forming part of the prosecution material was underscored. The Court held as under: “6. It is imperative to underline that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Sanwarmal Raigar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3313/2020 decided on 03.08.2022),underscored the significance of ensuring the integrity and authenticity of electronic evidence and it has been held that the denial of access to cloned copies of electronic evidence could potentially compromise the accused’s right to a fair trial. In this backdrop, the present petition warrants a meticulous examination of the principles laid down in the aforementioned precedent. 7. Further, in the matter of Sanjay Singh Kachhwaha v.State of Rajasthan(S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8014/2022decided on 12.12.2022), the [2026:RJ-JP:22563] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-9341/2022] Coordinate Bench of this Court has reiterated the necessity of providing the accused with all the material evidence in its pristine form to safeguard the sanctity of the trial process. The Court emphasized that the denial of such access amounts to a violation of the procedural safeguards granted to the accused, thereby vitiating the fairness of the trial. 8. In light of these judicial pronouncements, this Court observes that the impugned order of the learned trial court fails to align with the principles of natural justice and established legal precedents. The perfunctory rejection of the petitioner's application without substantive reasoning is antithetical to the procedural rights afforded to the accused under the criminal-justice system. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to uphold the constitutional mandate of a fair trial, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the petition, directing the learned trial court to ensure the provision of a cloned copy of the CD, the original recording device, and the Hash value to the petitioner. This direction is imperative to avert any miscarriage of justice and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.” The legal position governing disclosure of electronic records, as noticed herein-above, obligates fair access and supply of authentic copies of prosecution material relied upon and collected during investigation. The furnishing of incomplete or legally unrecognised copies, or denial of authenticated copies, not only impinges upon the petitioner’s right to a fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also strikes at the very root of the accused’s right to effectively invoke the remedy of discharge. Electronic records, unlike conventional documentary evidence, possess inherent forensic attributes essential for examining their integrity and authenticity. The cloned copy with the hash value of the electronic evidence assumes particular significance, as it is necessary to authenticate the chain of the electronic record. In the absence of such safeguards, it cannot be readily concluded that the electronic material has been preserved and produced in an authenticated manner. Denial of cloned copies of such electronic records, particularly when their integrity and authenticity are intrinsically linked to recognized [2026:RJ-JP:22563] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-9341/2022] forensic attributes, would inevitably cause prejudice to the accused’s right to effectively defend his case. The summary of the charge-sheet available illuminates that a CD was provided to the petitioner in compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C., which is in absence of hash value. The facts stated in the application clearly state that the clone copy has not been provided nor the hash value. The order of the learned trial Court also does not state that any such clone copy with hash value of the recordings was given to the petitioner. Merely supply of a CD is not sufficient, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court. The petitioner was entitled to get the cloned copies of the original recording with hash value, relied upon by the prosecution, so that he may know the authenticity of the electronic record. This Court finds that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the significance of the electronic evidence and the settled legal principles governing its disclosure. The issue relates to the accused’s entitlement to access electronic material relied upon by the prosecution. The petitioner has not requested for any new documents, but has only asked for material which cannot be properly verified. If a document is not verified, the defence would not be able to use it at the appropriate stage. Hence, the dismissal of the application relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi was not justified. In light of the judicial pronouncements referred to hereinabove, this Court observes that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not stand in conformity with the settled legal position, the principles of natural justice, and the requirements governing fairness of trial. Hence, this Court is inclined to partly allow the application filed before the trial Court to the extent of obtaining the clone copy of the original digital recording. The question regarding the calling of the original DVR, other documents, and manipulation in the CD tendered, has to be decided during the course of trial. This Court is not making any observation upon the same. As the trial Court has also rejected the application looking to the stage of the charges in the trial, the petitioner would certainly be free to file an appropriate application for the same at an appropriate stage, which shall be considered in accordance with law.” [2026:RJ-JP:22563] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-9341/2022] 6. The instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II stands quashed and set aside to the extent of refusing to supply the clone copy of the record. 7. The Trial Court is directed to supply the clone copy of the recording to the petitioner forthwith. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/44