Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.473 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. The said case has been registered for offences under Sections 354, 506(i) I.P.C., 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. The investigation is still pending and the final report has not been filed by the respondent police before the jurisdictional Magistrate. While so, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirukoilur seeking certified copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., from the witnesses in the said case. 2. According to the petitioner, he is in need of the same for using it in a different proceeding and therefore, he filed the said petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 16.12.2011, returned the said petition with the following remarks:- “As per Circular of Hon’ble High Court in R.O.C.No.1823-A/2010/F1 and orders of the Hon’ble High Court in 1988 LW (Crl.) 503, the petitioner is not entitled to certified copy of the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in this case and investigation is pending. Hence, this petition is returned.” 3. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come up with this petition challenging the said order of return made by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 4. In this petition, it is contended by the petitioner that he is entitled for certified copies of the statements recorded from the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C., though the fact remains that the investigation is still pending and final report has not been filed so far. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Selvanathan alias Raghavan and 9 others v. State (1988 L.W (Crl.) 503). 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, after referring to the said judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, would point out that earlier, in State of Madras v G. Krishnan (AIR 1961 MADRAS 92 (Vol.48, C.28) a Full Bench of this Court had taken the view that the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., cannot be made available to the accused during the pendency of investigation. However, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the subsequent Full Bench judgment in Selvanathan case (cited supra), the Full Bench has taken the view that the accused is entitled for a copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., because, it is a public document. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the earlier Full Bench judgment viz., G. Krishnan case (cited supra) has got nothing to do with the furnishing a copy of a public document viz., a statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this petition. According to him, as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in G. Krishnan case, the petitioner is not entitled for certified copies of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 7. I have considered the above submissions carefully. 8. A perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in G. Krishnan case, would go to show that the specific question which was referred for decision by the Full Bench was ‘as to whether an accused is entitled for certified copy of a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.’ The full Bench, after having extensively gone into the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the constitutional provisions, has held that the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., would be public documents falling under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Evidence Act and the accused will be entitled to copies of the same as a person interested; but, his right to obtain such copies, before the filing of the charge sheet has been taken away by implication by the provisions of Section 173(4) of the Cr.P.C., and he will be entitled to the copies of the documents only in accordance therewith. 9. In Selvanathan case in paragraph No.38,, the Full Bench of this Court has held as follows:- “38..............Firstly in the Full Bench case, the question referred to for decision was whether the statements under Section 164 of the Code fall under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act, and if so, whether the accused would be entitled to copies of the same at any stage of the investigation, even before the filing of the charge sheet. Secondly, the Full Bench has not considered the constitutional envisaged under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Secondly, the Full Bench has not considered the constitutional envisaged under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Above all, the framers of the Code have now introduced as new provisions, Section 50 in conformity with Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Further the view expressed by the Full Bench that the accused’s right to obtain copies before the filing of the charge sheet has been taken away by the implication of the provisions of Section 173(4) of the old Code (corresponding to Section 207 of the new Code) and that he will be entitled to copies of the documents only in accordance therewith, cannot hold good in view of the new provisions of Section 50 of the Code in conformity with Article 22(1) of the Constitution.” 10. Relying on the above observation, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that in view of the new provisions introduced, more particularly, in Section 173(7) Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused is entitled for certified copies of the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., even before completion of the investigation. 11. As I have already pointed out, the question which was answered by the Full Bench of this Court in G. Krishnan case was as to whether an accused is entitled for a certified copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., during the course of investigation. The Full Bench has clearly answered the said question that the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., would be public documents falling under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence and the accused will be entitled to copies of the same as a person interested; but his right to obtain such copies before the filing of the charge sheet has been taken away by implication by the provisions of Section 173(4) of Cr.P.C., and that he will be entitled to the copies of the documents only in accordance therewith. 12. It is needles to point out that the law declared by the Full Bench in G. Krishnan case cannot be taken to have been over-ruled by the subsequent coequal Bench in Selvanathan case. A close reading of the judgment of the subsequent Full Bench judgment in Selvanathan case would go to show that the question answered by the Full Bench in G. Krishnan case was totally different and it was in a different context. A close reading of the judgment of the subsequent Full Bench judgment in Selvanathan case would go to show that the question answered by the Full Bench in G. Krishnan case was totally different and it was in a different context. The subsequent Full Bench judgment in Selvanathan case had no occasion to deal with the question as to whether an accused is entitled for certified copy of a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., during the course of investigation. The question which was considered by the subsequent Full Bench was as to whether the accused is entitled for copy of the F.I.R; a copy of the request made by the police for custody and a copy of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The Full Bench has considered that these documents are public documents falling within the ambit of Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act and there is no special privilege involved as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Since the personal liberty of an accused is deprived of, the Full Bench has taken the view that the accused is entitled for copy of the F.I.R; the remand request and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The said view was taken by the Full Bench because, it is yet another fundamental right of the accused to know the grounds of arrest and the grounds of detention. While striking a balance between this fundamental right guaranteed to the accused to know the grounds of arrest and the grounds of detention vis-a-vis, the case diary privilege, the Full Bench has answered in favour of the accused because the personal liberty is predominant. Thus, the subsequent Full Bench in Selvanathan case has held that the accused is entitled for the copy of the F.I.R, request made by the police for remand and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the judgment of the Full Bench in Selvanathan case cannot be treated as a judgment over-ruling the law declared by the earlier co-equal Bench in G. Krishnan case. 14. In view of the above law declared by two Full Benches, this Court has very recently issued a Circular to all the learned Judicial Magistrates to scrupulously follow the mandate declared by the above two Full Benches of this Court. 14. In view of the above law declared by two Full Benches, this Court has very recently issued a Circular to all the learned Judicial Magistrates to scrupulously follow the mandate declared by the above two Full Benches of this Court. It is based on the said Circular and based on the law laid down by the above Full Benches, the learned Judicial Magistrate, in the instant case, has declined to furnish a copy of the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., to the petitioner/accused. 15. Now turning to the last limb of the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel, after referring to Section 173 (7) Cr.P.C., the learned counsel would submit that the accused is entitled for copies of all those documents upon which, the prosecution is going to make reliance. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that when a document is filed against the accused, it is his right to look into the same and therefore, he is entitled for a copy of the said documents during the course of investigation. I do not find any substance at all in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel. 16. A reading of Section 173(7) Cr.P.C., would go to show that where a police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). Sub Section (5) states that when such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report the following documents:- ‘‘(a) All documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) The statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witness.“ Here, the expression „report“ denotes a police report under Section 173(5) (a) Cr.P.C. 17. It is the discretion of the police officer to furnish copies of the above documents if he so wishes. But, it will be obligatory on the part of the Court to furnish copies of these documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. It is immaterial as to whether any such document, which has come into existence during the course of investigation, is in favour of the accused or in favour of the prosecution. But, it will be obligatory on the part of the Court to furnish copies of these documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. It is immaterial as to whether any such document, which has come into existence during the course of investigation, is in favour of the accused or in favour of the prosecution. In view of the said position, the last contention of the learned Senior Counsel is also liable to be rejected. 18. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on two judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court in Rev.Samuel D.Stephens & Others v. Pastor A.Samuel Ramasamy 2009(1) MWN (Cr.) 298) and in Arjunan v. State of Tamil Nadu (a) In so far as Rev. Samuel D. Stephens case is concerned, that was a case relating to private complaint. It is needless to point out that in respect of private complaint cases, there is no question of case diary privilege. Thus, that judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is a case instituted on police report. (b) In so far as Arjunan v. State of Tamil Nadu (cited supra) case is concerned, the question before the learned Judge was as to whether the accused is entitled for a copy of an order made by the Jurisdictional Magistrate issuing warrant for house search. On considering the said question, the learned Judge took a view that the said order being a public document, the accused is entitled for the same. Regarding the said proposition, there can be no controversy. It is needless to say that the accused is entitled for a copy of any order passed by the Magistrate which are undoubtedly public documents. But that will not include a statement recorded from the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 19. In view of all the above, I find that the learned Judicial Magistrate was right in declining to furnish a copy of the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., to the petitioner on the ground that the investigation is pending and the final report has not been filed. Thus, I do not find any merit in this petition. 20. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.