Judgment :- Petitions under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records connected with Crl.M.P.Nos.1904 and 1901 of 2005 in PRC No.2 of 2005 dated 7.4.2005 and set aside the same and further issue direction to the learned Magistrate to supply the statement recorded from Kadiravan (A6) on 24.11.2004 as part of document under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Common Order The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9883 of 2005 is the sixth accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9885 of 2005 is the fifth accused in PRC No.2 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram. 2. The petitioners along with the other accused have been charged with the major offence of murder. 3. They filed criminal miscellaneous petition Nos.1901 and 1904 of 2005 in PRC No.2 of 2005 praying to furnish a copy of the statement of the accused Kadiravan given before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram on 24.11.2004. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram, having observed that the remand accused Kadiravan made some representation only before the said Magistrate and that the same was not a confession or a statement of an accused as contemplated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissed the application seeking copies of such a statement under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and gave liberty to the accused either to peruse the said statement recorded during the course of remanding the accused or get a certified copy thereof, as the same is a public document as defined under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that though the accused Kadiravan allegedly gave statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19.11.2004, his statement for the second occasion was admittedly recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram on 24.11.2004. Though the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram furnished a copy of the statement of Kadiravan recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19.11.2004, the statement given by the said accused for the second time before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram was not furnished. Though the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram furnished a copy of the statement of Kadiravan recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19.11.2004, the statement given by the said accused for the second time before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram was not furnished. The petitioners are entitled to have a copy of such a statement, which has been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if the prosecution does not rely upon such a document during the course of trial. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram would reflect that it was not a confession or a statement recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram for the second time from the accused Kadiravan, but it was only a record of representation made by the accused Kadiravan during the course of extension of remand of the accused and that therefore such a representation recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram need not be given to the accused under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. It is relevant to incorporate the following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of easy reference and disposal of these matters:- "Section 207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents.--- In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:- (i) ... ... ... ... (ii) ... ... ... ... (iii) ... ... ... ... (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164;" "Section 208. Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Sessions.---Where, in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under Section 204 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:- (i) ... ... ... ... (ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under Section 161 or Section 164;" "Section 209. ... ... ... (ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under Section 161 or Section 164;" "Section 209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it.---When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall-- (a) commit, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or Section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;" Whether it is a case triable by the Court of Sessions or not, the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be supplied to the accused. 8. In a case which is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall commit the accused only after complying with the aforesaid provisions of law under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As far as the confession or statement of the accused recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the copies will have to be furnished to the accused irrespective of the fact whether or not the prosecution is going to rely upon it. 9. Therefore, the Court will have to first decide whether the representation of the accused Kadiravan jotted down by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram, at the time of extension of remand, will amount to confession or statement as adumbrated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. The author of such a jotting viz., the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram has categorically come to a conclusion that it is only a jotting of the representation made by the accused Kadiravan at the time of extending the remand by the Court and the same does not fall under the category of either confession or statement of the accused. 11. Therefore it is held that the accused Kadiravan had not given any confession or statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the second time. 12. 11. Therefore it is held that the accused Kadiravan had not given any confession or statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the second time. 12. When it does not fall under the classification of confession or statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when the said document is not going to be relied upon by the prosecuting agency, there is no necessity to furnish a copy of the said document to the petitioners herein. 13. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram has given liberty to the accused to peruse such a representation of the accused Kadiravan recorded by him during the course of extending the remand of the accused or to get certified copy of the said document. Such a liberty given to the accused has not been availed of by the petitioners herein. They have come out with the frivolous petitions before this Court without any sustainable ground. 14. In the result, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram in Crl.M.P.Nos.1901 and 1904 of 2005 in PRC No.2 of 2005 does not warrant interference and therefore, the criminal original petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions also stand dismissed.