Allahabad HC: Recordings sent to CFSL not yet filed in trial court cannot be supplied to accused under BNSS s.230

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 29 October 2026

Case: Not stated in source
Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Not stated in source
Citation: Not stated in source
Statutes: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s.230
Source: SCC Times

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Allahabad High Court held that original recordings of telephonic conversations sent to CFSL for expert opinion, and not yet filed before the trial court, cannot be supplied to an accused person. This is because material not on the trial court's record is not covered by Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

Material that has not been filed on the trial court's record cannot be supplied to an accused person under Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates seeking discovery of evidence must confirm that the material has been formally filed before the trial court. Litigants should be aware that evidence undergoing forensic analysis and not yet submitted to the court record is not immediately discoverable.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Evidence not formally filed in the trial court cannot be supplied to the accused.
2Recordings sent to CFSL for expert opinion are not discoverable until filed.
3Section 230 BNSS applies only to material on the court's record.

The Legal Issue The Allahabad High Court addressed whether original recordings of telephonic conversations, which had been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for expert opinion and had not yet been filed before the trial court, could be supplied to an accused person. The question implicitly revolved around the scope of Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the supply of copies of documents and statements to the accused.

Court's Reasoning The Court observed that the original recordings were still with the CFSL for expert analysis and had not been formally placed on the record of the trial court. The Allahabad High Court held that any material which has not been filed on the trial court’s record cannot be supplied to an accused person. This implies that the obligation under Section 230 BNSS to provide copies to the accused only arises once the material forms part of the official court record.

What Follows Based on this ruling, an accused person cannot demand copies of evidence, such as telephonic recordings, that are still undergoing forensic examination and have not yet been submitted to the trial court. The supply of such material will only become mandatory once it is formally filed as part of the court's record, after which the provisions of Section 230 BNSS would apply.