<p>Bengaluru: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</a> on Thursday allowed the trial court to proceed with the hearing before charges, but stated that the framing of charges against former <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/hassan">Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna</a> should not occur until the next hearing date.</p><p>Justice M Nagaprasanna passed this order while adjourning the hearing to January 16 on the petition filed by Prajwal.</p><p>The trial court has posted the matter for framing of charges to January 16 in the case of sexual harassment against Prajwal Revanna under IPC sections 376 and 354. He moved the high court challenging the rejection of his application under CrPC section 207 for certain electronic evidence, clone copies of the content retrieved from a mobile phone seized from the driver of the petitioner. </p><p>The counsel for the petitioner submitted that content of the phone which forms part of the forensic report dated June 18, 2024 has to be provided as those images are necessary and the route of travel of those images would also become necessary for Prajwal Revanna to defend his case.</p>.'Wasting the judicial time': Karnataka High Court junks PIL against Rahul Gandhi for remarks berating Prajwal Revanna.<p>On the other hand, BN Jagadeesh, Additional State Public Prosecutor, submitted that the entire content would amount to more than 15000 images and the same would expose other victims as their privacy is involved. He submitted that the application filed by Prajwal Revanna is nothing but delay tactics. </p><p>He also stated that the Apex Court in Gopalakrishnan case has laid down a method of production of electronic evidence in such cases of rape/Pocso and the same will be followed. </p><p>The court orally said that the access to the entire material retrieved from the Samsung mobile phone cannot be given to the petitioner as it would unnecessarily expose other victims whose images are said to be in that phone. </p><p>“Whatever content that is necessary for this case would be provided to you in terms of Supreme Court's guidelines in Gopalakrishnan case,” the court said while adjourning the hearing to January 16.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</a> on Thursday allowed the trial court to proceed with the hearing before charges, but stated that the framing of charges against former <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/hassan">Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna</a> should not occur until the next hearing date.</p><p>Justice M Nagaprasanna passed this order while adjourning the hearing to January 16 on the petition filed by Prajwal.</p><p>The trial court has posted the matter for framing of charges to January 16 in the case of sexual harassment against Prajwal Revanna under IPC sections 376 and 354. He moved the high court challenging the rejection of his application under CrPC section 207 for certain electronic evidence, clone copies of the content retrieved from a mobile phone seized from the driver of the petitioner. </p><p>The counsel for the petitioner submitted that content of the phone which forms part of the forensic report dated June 18, 2024 has to be provided as those images are necessary and the route of travel of those images would also become necessary for Prajwal Revanna to defend his case.</p>.'Wasting the judicial time': Karnataka High Court junks PIL against Rahul Gandhi for remarks berating Prajwal Revanna.<p>On the other hand, BN Jagadeesh, Additional State Public Prosecutor, submitted that the entire content would amount to more than 15000 images and the same would expose other victims as their privacy is involved. He submitted that the application filed by Prajwal Revanna is nothing but delay tactics. </p><p>He also stated that the Apex Court in Gopalakrishnan case has laid down a method of production of electronic evidence in such cases of rape/Pocso and the same will be followed. </p><p>The court orally said that the access to the entire material retrieved from the Samsung mobile phone cannot be given to the petitioner as it would unnecessarily expose other victims whose images are said to be in that phone. </p><p>“Whatever content that is necessary for this case would be provided to you in terms of Supreme Court's guidelines in Gopalakrishnan case,” the court said while adjourning the hearing to January 16.</p>