- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code or Criminal Procedure with the prayer that the order dated 9-8-1996 passed by the 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 135 of 1995 State v. Ashok Mishra be set aside and a direction be issued to the concerned Magistrate to provide a copy of the audio cassette alleged to have been recorded at Lucknow camp office on 24-2- 1990 and 26-2-1990.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in this case. Heard Sri S. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. on behalf of the State and Sri P. K. Singh learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The applicant is facing trial under Section 407, I. P. C. in Crime Case No. 135 of 1995 in the court of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. At the trial opposite party No. 2, namely, Sri V. K. Bhardwaj, Company Secretary, U. P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation has been examined as P. W. 1. It appears that during this examination-in-chief, a cassette containing recorded conversation between the applicant accused and Sri V. K. Bhardwaj was put up in evidence which was sought to be proved by the witness. On behalf of the applicant-accused, an objection was taken about the admissibility of the cassette and it was prayed that a copy of the cassette be supplied to him so that the genuineness of the recorded matter may be ascertained. By order dated 9-8-1996, the learned Magistrate observed that the cassette was played in the court in the presence of learned counsel for both the parties and thereafter examination-in-chief of the witness was recorded. It was also observed that there was no justification for supplying a copy of the cassette to the applicant, and, if necessary, during the course of cross objection, cassette maybe played again.
(3.) ON behalf of the opposite party, a copy of the transcribed conversation from the cassette has been filed before this court as Annexure 1 to the affidavit dated 3-1-1997 sworn in by Sri Akhilesh Kumar. It was urged that the said copy be supplied to the applicant so that he may utilise the same in cross- examination of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant- accused urged that mere transcribed conversation is not sufficient to prepare an effective defence in the case on behalf of the applicant. I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. The cassette is in the nature of a document. Normally, if the said cassette has been produced during the course of investigation, its copy would have been supplied to the applicant under the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the cassette was, for the first time, produced before the court during the course of examination- in-chief of the witness P. W. 1, the applicant was justified in asking for a copy of it. Even if the transcript of the conversation is supplied to the applicant-accused, it would not be sufficient for preparing the defence. Supply of the duplicate of the cassette to the accused is necessary for one simple reason that the applicant-accused would have an opportunity to play the tape himself with a view to prepare defence and to find out if any interpolation and erosions have been made in the tape. Sometimes fake voices are taped. The applicant-accused has, of necessity, to ascertain whether the tape contains his voice or not. All this can be done if the duplicate of the cassette is thoroughly heard and examined by accused or his counsel. Therefore, mere supply of the transcript would not be sufficient to prepare proper and effective defence. As a matter of fact, the applicant-accused has a right to insist that a duplicate copy of the cassette be supplied to him. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the opposite parties in supplying the duplicate cassette to the accused. The learned Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind in true perspective while deciding the objection made on behalf of the accused-applicant. The trial is unnecessarily held up.;