Full Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Saraswat for the petitioner accused and learned AAG Mr. R.P. Vyas for the respondent State.
2. This petition is filed Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Officer In charge (Copying Sec), District and Sessions Court, Jodhpur and also the impugned order dated 20.12.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur by which the application filed by the accused for obtaining duplicate copy of video cassette was rejected in criminal case No. 352/2000 and C.R. No.93(26)/98 (State v. Salman Khan and Ors.)
3. In the instant case in the presence of the petitioner accused, the statement of witnesses were once again recorded and while doing the same, the videography of the same was also done. After completion of the investigation, the Forest Department filed complaint against the accused persons Under Sections 2(16), 9/52 and 9/51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. Along with the said complaint, the forest department also produced the documents on which they were going to rely but only copy of complaint was supplied to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, an application was submitted for obtaining the copies of documents annexed with the complaint in the copying Section of the District and Sessions Court, Jodhpur. It was granted and the accused were given certified copies of all the relevant documents except the duplicate copy of video cassette.
4. Under the circumstances, an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court to supply the duplicate copy of video cassette. However, the said application was rejected by the learned trial judge by his order dated 20.12.2000. Hence, this petition.
5. It was submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Saraswat that in absence of the duplicate copy of video cassette, the accused would be deprived, of his fundamental right of cross-examination and he will not be able to do effective cross-examination which would result into a serious prejudice to the accused during the trial. However, learned AAG Mr. Vyas vehemently submitted that the learned trial Judge has made it very clear in his order that it is not possible for the Court to get the duplicate copy of video cassette but if the defence counsel thinks it fit, then the same can be seen in the Court itself. Mr. Vyas, therefore, submits that no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the duplicate copy of video cassette is not given to him.
6. Having carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge. I am of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was wrong in rejecting the application of the accused. The reason assigned by him that it is not possible for the Court to get the duplicate copy of video cassette is wholly unsustainable. The Courts are there to do justice to one and all including the accused. If it was not possible for the Court to get the duplicate copy of video cassette, then it should have ordered the forest department to prepare the same and hand over the same to the accused for his evidence. But this is no ground for rejecting the application.
7. It is true that the learned trial Judge has observed in his order that if the defence counsel thinks it fit then the video cassette may be operated in the Court at the time of trial for the purpose of cross-examination, but Mr. Saraswat was right in submitting that the defence counsel has to prepare himself well in advance before cross-examination of the witnesses and he would not be in a position to make effective cross-examination of the witnesses in absence of advance duplicate copy of video cassette made available to him.
8. Thus, it is clear that the reasons assigned by learned trial Judge for dismissing the application of the accused are wholly unsustainable.
9. Ordinarily, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. but in the instant case, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and it is a clear case of prejudice to the accused if the duplicate copy of video cassette is not made available to him.
10. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed, the application submitted by the petitioner before the trial Court to provide duplicate copy of video cassette is granted and it is directed that the Trial Judge provide the duplicate copy of the same to the accused at his own costs and thereafter once again seal the original cassette and keep it in his custody.
11. At this stage, an apprehension is expressed by Shri R.P. Vyas for the State that if the duplicate copy of video cassette is given to the accused, then there is possibility of the same being tampered with by the accused. This apprehension is not well founded because the duplicate copy of the original video cassette is to be provided and if any mischief is played by the accused, then he has to suffer serious consequences.
12. With these observations, this petition is allowed.