Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 291 (MAD)

Jafarulla Khan v. A. I. AI Ameen

2016-01-25

M.VENUGOPAL

body2016
ORDER : 1. The Petitioners/A1 and A2 have preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 18.01.2016 in Copy Application No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C. No.91 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi, Sivaganga District. 2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District, while passing the impugned order, on 18.01.2016, had observed that:- 'the accused after pronouncement of judgment, had not paid t he fine amount and also not signed in the documents and also escaped the punishment by means of their absconding'. Not obtained the free copies. Therefore, the Petitioners/Accused should appear in person and obtain the copies. In this connection, as against the Petitioners/Accused in Ilayankudi Crime No. 6 of 2016, a case was registered and the same was pending and since the Petitioners had absconded, dismissed the application'. 3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 18.01.2016 in Copy Application No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C. No.91 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi, Sivaganga District, the Petitioners have focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court primarily contending that the impugned order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi is in complete negation of the principles of natural justice and it also affects the fundamental right of a person to life and liberty. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges before this Court that the trial Court should have seen that the Petitioners are very much entitled to obtain the certified copies of the judgment in S.T.C. No.91 of 2015 dated 18.01.2016 passed by the trial Court and in this regard, there is no statutory bar dis-entitling the Petitioners to get the certified copies of the judgment. 5. While summing up, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners projects a legal plea that the very denial of the trial Court in dismissing C.A.No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015, thereby curtailing the Petitioners to obtain the certified copies in question virtually crippled the Petitioners' right. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioners/Accused are entitled to get free copy of the judgment in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 on the file of trial Court and that free copy of the judgment can be supplied both to the accused and his learned counsel. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioners/Accused are entitled to get free copy of the judgment in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 on the file of trial Court and that free copy of the judgment can be supplied both to the accused and his learned counsel. Furthermore, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioners that the Petitioners in Law is entitled to apply for the certified copy of judgment in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi and in this regard, the trial Court is not empowered in Law to negative the request made on behalf of the Petitioners/Accused in regard to the obtaining of copy of the judgment in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015. 6. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused seeks in aid of Rule 339 of 'THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND CIRCULAR ORDERS, 1958', whereby and whereunder, it is mentioned as follows: “339. Copies to be given to parties.-(1) Copies of any portion of the record of a Criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorised fee for copying. Where the Judge's notes form the only record of the evidence, copies of these notes be given.” 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision of this Court (Rev. Samuel D. Stephens and ors. v. Pastor A. Samuel Ramasamy) reported in 2009 (1) MWN (Cr.) 298 at special page-305, wherein at paragraph-22, it is observed and held thus:- 22. A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, if it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under Section 204, Cr.P.C., that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall furnish to the accused a copy of each of the documents filed a long with the complaint. That Sections casts duty on the Court to furnish the said documents free of cost. But similar duty is not cast on the Magistrate to furnish copies of the documents free of cost if the case is not triable exclusively by the Court of Session. That Sections casts duty on the Court to furnish the said documents free of cost. But similar duty is not cast on the Magistrate to furnish copies of the documents free of cost if the case is not triable exclusively by the Court of Session. It would mean that it is not incumbent on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate to furnish copies of the documents free of cost either at the time of sending the process or on the appearance of the accused. There is no other provision which prohibits the accused from applying for certified copies of those documents filed alongwith the complaint. As pointed out above, in the absence of any specific prohibition in the Cr.P.C., either expressly or impliedly, in the considered view of this Court, the accused cannot be deprived of his right to get certified copies of the documents filed alongwith the complaint so as to defend himself in the case as long as such furnishing of certified copies would not prejudice the case of the respondent. 8. It is to be borne in mind that when a person/an accused is affected by a judgment or order passed by a Court of Law, then, in the event of copy application made in this behalf and on payment of prescribed charges, a copy of the order/judgment, deposition or any other part of the records is to be furnished to him, in the considered opinion of this Court. There is nothing in Section 363 of Cr.P.C., to point out that before an individual person can ask for such copy, he must appear in Court as per decision Shree Lal Saraf v. State of Bihar reported in 1979 Cr LJ 895 (PAT). 9. To put it succinctly, every accused in Law is very much entitled to obtain a free copy of the order/judgment passed in a given case. 10. In reality, every accused is entitled to a free copy of the order passed on every bail application on the same day, when the order is passed as per decision Usman vs. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in 2003 2 Karnataka Law Times P. 594. 11. 10. In reality, every accused is entitled to a free copy of the order passed on every bail application on the same day, when the order is passed as per decision Usman vs. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in 2003 2 Karnataka Law Times P. 594. 11. At this Stage, this Court abundantly points out that an accused is entitled to the copy of the order of remand and extension of remand on payment of prescribed charges as per decision (Selvananthan @ Raghavanand others v. State by Inspector of Police, G5 Police Station) reported in 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 503 (FB). 12. Be that as it may, in the upshot of aforesaid detailed, qualitative and quantitative discussions and in view of the clear cut position that there is no legal embargo for the petitioners/A1 and A2 to apply for the certified copy of judgment in C.A.No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi, is not correct in dismissing the C.A.No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 filed by the Petitioners/A1 and A2 seeking necessary copies of the documents. 13. Viewed in that perspective, the impugned order dated 18.01.2016 in C.A.No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi is set aside by this Court, to prevent an aberration of justice and in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. Consequently, the present Revision Petition succeeds. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 18.01.2016 in C.A.No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi is set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Criminal Revision. Further, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi is directed to restore the C.A.No.16 of 2016 (emergent application) in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 and to comply with the request for issuance of judgment in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the Petitioners to produce the copy of the order passed by this Court in this Revision, for early compliance of the order before the trial Court and to seek appropriate remedy, if they so desire/advised.