Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 818 (KER)

Vivek Nair v. Puravankara Projects Limited

2017-05-30

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

body2017
JUDGMENT : K. Abraham Mathew, J. 1. Is the accused entitled to a certified copy of the document produced by the complainant which itself is a copy. The petitioner-accused is said to have committed the offences under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Along with his complaint the respondent produced three documents which are photocopies. The petitioner filed an application to issue certified copies of those documents. But he has not been issued. The prayer in this Original Petition is to direct the court below to issue certified copies. 2. Notice to the respondent is dispensed with as the decision in this matter will not affect his rights or cause any prejudice to him. 3. Under S. 207 Cr.P.C. an accused is entitled to copies of the documents produced along with the final report. But the provision is applicable only to the proceedings instituted on a police report. S. 208 Cr.P.C. provides that in cases triable by a court of session the accused is entitled to copies of the documents on which the prosecution relies if the case is instituted otherwise than on police report. The offence involved in the case is not one triable by a court of session. So S. 208 Cr.P.C. also is not applicable. 4. The provision contained in S. 204(3) Cr.P.C. is relevant. It provides that in a proceedings instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the complaint. It can immediately be noticed that the provision mandates issuance of copy of the complaint alone and not copies of the documents produced along with it. So this section does not enable the petitioner to get copies of the document. 5. There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. or Criminal Rules of Practice under which the complainant may be directed to give the accused copies of the documents produced along with his complaint. 6. In the absence of a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Rules of Practice enabling the petitioner to get copies of the documents, can the court refuse to give him copies? In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Satyen Bhowmick & Ors. 6. In the absence of a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Rules of Practice enabling the petitioner to get copies of the documents, can the court refuse to give him copies? In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Satyen Bhowmick & Ors. ( AIR 1981 SC 917 ) the Supreme Court held that the right of an accused to get copies of the documents on which the prosecution relies is a valuable right. As held by the Apex Court in Mangilal v. State of M.P. ( AIR 2004 SC 1280 ) the principles of natural justice should be read into every statute. Unless the petitioner obtains copies of the documents which are sought to be used against him, how can he defend himself effectively. It is only natural justice that the petitioner is given copies of the documents produced by the complainant. 7. There is no statutory provision empowering the court to issue copies of documents other than certified copies. Rule 222 of the Criminal Rules of Practice runs thus: Every application for a copy of a proceeding or document filed in or in the custody of a Court shall be presented by the applicant or his pleader and shall set out the name of the applicant, his position, if any, in the proceedings, the name of his pleader, if any, and a description of the proceeding or document of which a copy is required. It is clear that a person is entitled to get certified copy of a document filed in a court. A party is entitled to get copies as of right. If the applicant is a stranger, he can get them only on a petition duly verified stating the purpose for which the copies are required as provided in Rule 226 of Criminal Rules of Practice, 8. The probable objection to the issuance of certified copies to the petitioner is that the documents produced by the respondent are copies. S. 64 Evidence Act declares that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned in S. 65. S. 65 gives the situations when secondary evidence may be given. Copies other than certified copies are also secondary evidence if they satisfy the requirements of S. 63. Thus the Indian Evidence Act makes copies other than certified copies admissible in evidence. S. 65 gives the situations when secondary evidence may be given. Copies other than certified copies are also secondary evidence if they satisfy the requirements of S. 63. Thus the Indian Evidence Act makes copies other than certified copies admissible in evidence. If a copy other than certified copy produced by a party is admitted in evidence in a case, the court cannot refuse to issue its certified copy to the opposite side on the ground that the admitted document is only a copy. It is clear that there is no total embargo on issuing certified copy of a copy. This also supports the view that certified copies of documents produced along with the complaint - though they themselves are copies-may be issued to the accused. The petitioner is entitled to get copies of the documents produced by the respondent. Whether the certified copies are admissible in a case or not is not a matter to be looked into by the court which issues the copies. The entitlement of an accused to get copies of the documents produced by the complainant does not depend upon the admissibility of the copies so issued. But to avoid any possible misuse, the court may note in red ink at the foot of the certified copies that they are certified copies of copies. In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. The court below is directed to issue certified copies of the documents produced by the respondent along with his complaint