Brijesh Kumar, C. J. — In this writ petition, indeed the controversy which is involved is narrowed down in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri N. Dutta, as, according to him, the main question which now remains to be considered is in regard to the custody of judicial record during the pendency of proceedings before the criminal Courts. 2. In Civil Rule No.241(HC) of 1991, it appears, some allegations were made that the judicial record in the custody of the police were tampered with. In connection with such allegation the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati was directed to conduct an enquiry as to whether the judicial records were tampered with or not and to fix the responsibility. We are, however, not concerned with that aspect of the matter. 3. However, in the order dated 16.6.93 passed by this Court in Civil Rule (HC) 241 of 1991, anxiety was expressed about the institution of Police Inspector attached to criminal Courts and the practice in the State of Assam that such Police Inspectors being in charge of the Court records and property. It was thought that the criminal Courts should make their own arrangement for custody of records and property. Notices were issued to the Advocates General of all the States under the jurisdiction of this High Court and some committees were also constituted. It was later on indicated that the State Govt had been examining the matter for amendment of the provisions of the Police Manual as well as the proposal of creating a separate Directorate of Prosecution for the purpose. A Committee of senior Judicial Officers was also constituted, which was provided with the questionnaire prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 4. Ultimately, it appears that Draft Amendment to Assam Police Manual (Part IV) and Draft Proposal for Assam Public Prosecution Rules, 1997 (Part D) as prepared by the State Govt governing public prosecution in the State, were provided to learned counsel appearing in the case. A copy of the same has also been provided to the Court. Learned counsel appearing in the case as well as the learned Advocates General were given opportunity to make suggestions in the Draft Rules prepared by the Govt. 5. A copy of the same has also been provided to the Court. Learned counsel appearing in the case as well as the learned Advocates General were given opportunity to make suggestions in the Draft Rules prepared by the Govt. 5. From the perusal of the records it transpires that by notification dated August 17, 1996, the Govt appointed the Deputy Inspector General of Police (TAP), Dergaon as also the ex-officio Director of Prosecution, Assam with immediate effect. 6. The Draft Amendment to Assam Police Manual (Part IV) and Draft Proposal for Assam Public Prosecution Rules, 1997( Part II) as indicated earlier, have been furnished to the Court as well as the learned counsel for the different parties. It appears that the State Govt while preparing the above noted draft , amendment to the Assam Police Manual (Part IV), also took into consideration the fact that since 1933 the Assam Police Manual was not revised and the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been enforced. 7. No comments, suggestions, or modifications have been made before us against the proposed amendments nor any counsel has addressed on the proposed amendments. Learned Advocate General, Assam, Shri PG Baruah, submits that c the Draft Rules, if approved, may be enforced by the State Govt. In our view, there is no occasion for approval of the proposed amendments by the Court. The State Govt, if satisfied that the proposed amendments would meet the situation and update the Rules in view of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and other changes in the law, it is open to the State Govt to enforce the Rules, as suggested. In case any occasion arises about the workability of any Rule, or their propriety or validity, the Court may consider the question in relation to any particular Rule at such appropriate time. 8. Shri N. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made submissions pointing out only one grievance that even the Court record, more particularly, for example, bail orders and orders of remand, they also remain in the custody of the police prosecuting staff attached to the Court. It is submitted that it leads to vulnerability of the documents which could easily be tampered with. None of the counsel appearing before us, namely, Shri NM Lahiri. It is submitted that it leads to vulnerability of the documents which could easily be tampered with. None of the counsel appearing before us, namely, Shri NM Lahiri. Shri PG Baruah and Shri GN Sahewalla, justified the practice which is said to be prevalent in the State of Assam. 9. Our attention has also been drawn to paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Draft Assam Public Prosecution Rules, 1997 (Part II) relating to "Custody of Case Diaries and Police Papers" and "Court Officer's connection with records". It is submitted that these two paragraphs are the same as the existing provisions on the above subject. It is submitted that the Court records, namely documents containing the orders of the Court including bail application, bail orders and remand orders, remain in the custody of the police staff attached to the Court under the above noted two provisions. The said provisions may be quoted below : “40. Custody of Case Diaries and police papers : All case diaries and any other papers connected with cases will invariably be regarded as confidential and kept under lock and key in a secure box or locked almirah until the case to which they relate is finally disposed of by the orders of a Magistrate or a Judge, and an appeal if prepared has been decided or the period allowed for appeal expired. Each Prosecuting Officer will for this purpose be supplied with a box or almirah with good lock and the key should always be kept by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. All covers containing case diaries will be inscribed with the words 'Case Diaries' and will be opened only by the Assistant Public Prosecutor or any person specially authorised by him or his superior officer in writing. For further Rules regarding the treatment of case diaries in Police Stations and Superintendent of Police's Offices (see Rules in Part II and Part V, Assam Police Manual). No copies of such papers may be given without orders of the Superintendent of Police or Magistrates. 41. Court Officer's connection with records: As soon as the police papers of a case are laid on trying Magistrate's table the Court Officer's responsibility with regard to these cases. He should, therefore, take care, whenever necessary to make copies of such papers as are likely to be filed with the judicial proceedings previous to their being put in. 41. Court Officer's connection with records: As soon as the police papers of a case are laid on trying Magistrate's table the Court Officer's responsibility with regard to these cases. He should, therefore, take care, whenever necessary to make copies of such papers as are likely to be filed with the judicial proceedings previous to their being put in. He has no concern with the custody of the judicial records of cases or with the records office. He is on no account to retain his possession the records of a case under trial unless ordered in writing to do so by the trying agistrate. If he subsequently requires a copy of any portion of the records, he sould make an application to the trying Magistrate and asked to be allowed to take the copy in the presence of a responsible official of the Court.” 10. A close look to the above noted provisions nowhere indicates about the custody of the documents or Court record with the prosecuting or Police Officer attached to the Court in relation to prosecution of the cases. Paragraph 40 talks about the custody of the case diaries and other papers connected with the case, which are to be kept under lock and key until the final disposal of the case, including appeal. For the custody of such diaries and other papers connected with the case, the prosecuting officer is to be provided with a box or almirah with lock and key. Paragraph 41 provides that as soon as the police papers of a case are laid on the trying Magistrate's table, the responsibility of the Court Officer ceases. It further clarifies that the Court Officer is not concerned with the custody of judicial records of cases or with the record office. All the documents, including the Case Diary, etc, are submitted to the Court while submitting the report under section 173 CrPC. Obviously, before such submission of report all the documents prepared or procured during investigation, remain in the custody of the investigating/prosecuting agency. Custody of Case Diary and such record is transferred to the Court along with the report under section 173 CrPC. It is quite apparent to find that the said two paragraph provide nothing, and rightly, about Court record. We have no doubt that the orders which are passed by the Court are part of the Court record. Custody of Case Diary and such record is transferred to the Court along with the report under section 173 CrPC. It is quite apparent to find that the said two paragraph provide nothing, and rightly, about Court record. We have no doubt that the orders which are passed by the Court are part of the Court record. The Court while passing an order on bail application or an order regarding remand of the accused, such orders cannot be regarded as police record or any documents or material collected during investigation. Custody of the documents containing the orders of the Court has only to remain with the Court itself and not with any other agency, may be, the prosecuting or the investigating agency. We are further of the view that for the purpose of custody of such documents/records with the Court, it does not require any such provision for their custody. They are to be kept and maintained as the Court record, like in any other case. For example, if a bail application is moved before the Court, obviously such application would be registered with appropriate heading. There must also be a separate file for such application. The order passed by the Court is to be kept in such a file. It requires no separate box, lock or key. Similarly, any other order passed by the Court relating to any matter, the Court must retain the custody of the same. The order sheets, upon which the orders are often passed, are obviously to be retained in custody of the Court itself. As a matter of fact, as indicated earlier, paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Rules, as existing and in respect of which no amend­ment is proposed, do not relate to the records containing the orders of the Court. If such records of the Court as indicated above is also kept in the custody of the police official or prosecuting agency attached to the Court, it is without any sanction of law. Where the Rules and Regulations regulating the functions of the different agencies and authorities are clearly provided, there is hardly any scope of any practice being developed which may be inconsistent with the express provisions. 11. Where the Rules and Regulations regulating the functions of the different agencies and authorities are clearly provided, there is hardly any scope of any practice being developed which may be inconsistent with the express provisions. 11. The system that is practised not only afforded room for aberrancy, the practice adhered to is also contrary to the Criminal Rules and Orders framed by the High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The general provisions relating to the records are prescribed in Chapter 4. Rule 3 cited in Chapter 4, reads as follows : “3. No record of any case or portion of it shall for any purpose be removed from the Court building or sent to any person other than an officer of the Court except under an order in writing of the Presiding Officer of the Court: Provided that if any Presiding Officer requires record at his residence he may take charge of it. Note: The taking of records and other Court papers by Ministerial Officer to their house for the purpose of their work is strictly forbidden and this practice whenever it exist shall at once be stopped.” 12. Prior to the adoption of the Gauhati High Court Criminal Rules and Order, the Criminal Rules and Orders of the Calcutta High Court were followed by virtue of the Assam High Court Order, 1948 since the establishment of the Assam High Court. Rule 225 of Chapter 12 of the Criminal Rules and Orders of the Calcutta High Court also speaks of the above practice. 13. We, therefore, finally dispose of this matter subject to the observations made in the body of the order and further providing that the judicial record or record of the Court, like bail orders and the remand orders passed by the Court, and the like orders, they shall not be retained in the custody of the prosecuting agency or Police Officer attached to the Court. Such practice which is said to have developed in the State of Assam has no legal sanction and in derogation of the prescribed practice, and all concerned must switch over to the correct procedure and position. Henceforth all the Courts must retain custody of all documents and records containing the orders. Such practice which is said to have developed in the State of Assam has no legal sanction and in derogation of the prescribed practice, and all concerned must switch over to the correct procedure and position. Henceforth all the Courts must retain custody of all documents and records containing the orders. Since it is indicated that the practice is in vogue since long, it is hoped that the Courts shall switch over to the correct procedure within a period of six months. 14. Let a copy of this order be circulated to all the District Judges and the Chief Judicial Magistrates.