Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CNR No. DLCT110001112022
CC No. 12/2022
FIR No. 43/2014
State Vs. Rajender Datt Vashishtha
PS ACB
17.08.2022
Present : Ms. Rajrani, Ld. Chief PP for the State.
Sole accused on bail along with Counsel Sh. Harshil Gupta.
IO Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh is present.
IO has brought one sealed envelope, sealed with the seal of
FSL with the impression “FSL XGP Delhi”. The seals on the envelope are
intact and the same have also been shown to the Counsel for accused.
It is stated that this envelope contains the copies got
prepared from FSL qua the voice samples of the complainant and the
accused, as per order of this Court dated 13.04.2022. The envelope is now
opened and is found to be containing total six audio cassettes, i.e. three
sets each of the voice sample of the accused and the complainant. One set
(Ex.3C & Ex.4C) is supplied to the accused, one set is supplied to the
Prosecution and one set is retained for Court records. The original voice
sample of the complainant and the accused is stated to be in malkhana in
another envelope as received from the FSL. Inside the envelope opened
today, examination report of the FSL dated 30.06.2022 is also found and
its copy is also supplied to the accused and Prosecution.
So far as other documents as mentioned in Para 3(3) to 3(6) of the
application of the accused are concerned, the IO has filed a reply.
So far as the copy of FIR no. 25/2014, as mentioned in para 3(6)
of the application U/s 207 Cr.P.C filed by the accused is concerned, the
same has been supplied and it is stated to be complete & legible, as stated
CNR No. DLCT110001112022 CC No. 12/2022 FIR No. 43/2014 State Vs. Rajender Datt Vashishtha dated 17.08.2022
Pg. 1 / 3
-- 1 of 3 --
by the Counsel for accused.
So far as the two letters mentioned in para 3(4) and 3(5) of the
application are concerned, IO has replied that both those letters were sent
from ACB to the concerned CPWD department and that no copies of the
same were retained or are available with the investigating agency. Once
those two documents are not available with the investigating agency, the
same cannot be supplied to the accused. Qua these two documents, the
accused may exercise his right U/s 91 of Cr.P.C at appropriate stage.
So far as the document mentioned in para 3(3) of the application is
concerned, the IO has replied that the transcript of the questioned audio /
video recording was used for obtaining the voice sample of the accused
and the complainant, and it has already been supplied to the accused and
also afresh copy of the same is brought by the IO today. However, Ld.
Counsel for the accused points out that under this paragraph, what is
demanded from the investigating agency is the transcript of the voice
sample and not the transcript of the questioned audio/video recording. To
it, the IO replies that no separate transcript of the voice samples of the
accused and the complainant were prepared and there is no such
document available with the investigating agency.
It seems that at the time of recording of voice sample of the
accused and the complainant, they were asked to read out the respective
portions spoken by them in the questioned audio / video recording and
which were attributed to them, from the transcript of the questioned
recording. Therefore, this document, as desired by the accused in para
3(3) of his application, does not exist and therefore cannot be supplied to
the accused.
It may be mentioned here that as contained in the order dated
13.04.2022, the document demanded by the accused in para 3(a) of his
application was supplied on that very day. Accordingly, all the documents
CNR No. DLCT110001112022 CC No. 12/2022 FIR No. 43/2014 State Vs. Rajender Datt Vashishtha dated 17.08.2022
Pg. 2 / 3
-- 2 of 3 --
desired by the accused have been supplied. The application is disposed of.
The file be now put up for arguments on charge on 31.08.2022.
(Dig Vinay Singh)
Special Judge (PC ACT)/ACB-02
Rouse Avenue Courts
New Delhi / 17.08.2022 (r)
CNR No. DLCT110001112022 CC No. 12/2022 FIR No. 43/2014 State Vs. Rajender Datt Vashishtha dated 17.08.2022
Pg. 3 / 3
-- 3 of 3 --