IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 781 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/02/2009 IN CRMP. 711 /2009 IN SC.368/2008 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 -------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH MADHAVAN,AGED 36 YRS, S/O.MADHAVAN,4B,FLAT ROYAL STADIUM KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM.(UNDER JUDICIAL CUSTODY). BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS SRI. V.G. GOVINDAN NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ========================= Crl. R.P. No.781 of 2009 ========================= Dated this the 3 rd day of March, 2009. ORDER The common 1st accused in S.C.Nos.368,369,370,428 and 429 of 2008 and the sole accused in S.C.No.371/2008 on the file of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, challenges the order dated 20.2.09 in C.M.P.No.711 of 2009 passed by the trial Judge disposing of the said application(C.M.P.No.711 of 2009) filed by the petitioner. As per the said application he had sought for copies of the material objects consisting of 22 items which include Video cassettes, pen drives etc.. The petitioner had also asked for a list of the material objects. That list was, however, furnished to the petitioner on 20.2.09. With regard to the copies of the Material Objects referred to above , the learned trial Judge refused to provide copies for the reason that as they are material objects, there is no provision for furnishing the copies of the same to the accused. 2. I heard Advocate Sri.B.Raman Pillai, the learned counsel Crl.R..P. No. 781/09 -:2:- appearing for the petitioner, as well as Sri.V.G.Govindan Nair, the learned Director General of Prosecution (D.G.P for short). 3. Eventhough the learned DGP raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the revision holding that the impugned order is not a final order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, in as much as he fairly conceded that his counterpart who is conducting the prosecution is also not having copies of the Material Objects referred to above or copies of the report of the Tahasildar (CW 61) who had allegedly viewed the electronic records and submitted a report regarding the alleged contents of those records. It cannot be disputed that the video cassettes and pen drives are electronic records and therefore “documents” within the meaning of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. It is unconceivable as to how the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel will conduct their respective cases by examining and cross-examining the witnesses without having the advantage of viewing the contents of the electronic records and studying the same. Since the trial of the case is to commence tomorrow and the petitioner/1st accused has been in custody since 13.5.2008, it is desirable that both the prosecution as well as the accused are supplied with copies of those Material Objects and Crl.R..P. No. 781/09 -:3:- report by the Tahasildar so that both sides can effectively put forward their contentions during the trial of the case. Accordingly, the prosecution shall make arrangements to take copies of the 22 items of Material Objects consisting of Video Cassettes , pen drives etc., by getting the services of recognized Government agencies like C-DAC and take copies under the supervision of the Court furnishing the same to the Prosecutor in charge of the case and the counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st accused. The court below shall make arrangements for the copies without dislocating the trial which is to start tomorrow(4.3.09). However, the trial of the case shall be held for the time requisite for taking the copies under the supervision of the Court. The trial Judge may re-schedule the trial accordingly. This revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj Crl.R..P. No. 781/09 -:4:- Crl.R..P. No. 781/09 -:5:-