IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2485 OF 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 17, 2011 Nirmal Singh ...Petitioner Versus C.B.I., Sector 30, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order framing the charge against him for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the prosecution had relied upon the recording of voice sample of the petitioner-accused containing conversation between him and the complainant, which has not been supplied to the petitioner at the time of framing of charge. This submission made on behalf of the petitioner was duly considered in the impugned order and the court felt that there was a prima-facie material evidence, besides the conversation as recorded on CD/Cassette, to frame a charge. The Cassette/CD could not be provided to the petitioner as the copy of the same had not been received from CFSL, Chandigarh, where it had been sent for verification. The grievance now made before me is that prosecution evidence is going on without providing the CD/Cassette, which will prejudice the trial of the petitioner. I am not inclined to accept this line CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2485 OF 2011 (O&M) :2: of submission. If any material is not supplied to the petitioner, which is formed part of challan, the same grievance may be raised before the trial Court and the petitioner would be at liberty to seek indulgence of the court in case this piece of evidence is essential for cross-examination of any witness. I am not inclined to interfere in the order framing the charge against the petitioner. Dismissed. October 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE