Gujarat High Court
Omprakash Rameshwarupdas Aggrawal vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 July, 2015
Author: V.M.Sahai
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai
R/SCR.A/2321/2013 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2321 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
OMPRAKASH RAMESHWARUPDAS AGGRAWAL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
Appearance:
MS NITA PANDIT, ADVOCATE for MR AR GUPTA, ADVOCATE for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
Date : 17/07/2015
Page 1 of 5
R/SCR.A/2321/2013 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. I have heard Ms.Nita Pandit, learned advocate for Mr.A.R.Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the petitioner has applied for a certified copy of the order-sheet (roznama) of the case and the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9 at Ahmedabad on the ground that as per Criminal Manual Para No.377, the certified copy of the order-sheet (rozanama) of the case cannot provided to the litigants. The order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Case No.4818 of 1997 has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition.
3. It will be profitable to extract Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:
"Section 327. Court to be open.-[(1)] The place in which any criminal court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed to be an open court to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them:
Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court.
[(2)] Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the inquiry into and trial of rape or an offence under section 376, section Page 2 of 5 R/SCR.A/2321/2013 JUDGMENT 376A, section 376B, section 376C [section 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)] shall be conducted in camera:
Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, or on an application made by either of the parties, allow any particular person to have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court:] [Provided further that in camera trial shall be conducted as far as practicable by a woman Judge or Magistrate.] [(3) where any proceedings are held under sub- section (2), it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any such proceedings, except with the previous permission of the Court:] [Provided that the ban on printing or publication of trial proceedings in relation to an offence of rape may be lifted, subject to maintaining confidentiality of name and address of the parties.]"
It would also be useful to reproduce Rules 142 and 377 of the Criminal Manual as below:
"Rule 142. (1) The attention of all the Judges and Magistrate is invited to Section 327, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which provides that public should have access to, or remain in the room or building used by a Court, except when the presiding Judge or Magistrate thinks it fit to exclude either the public generally or any particular person, in any particular case. (2) In cases relating to sexual offences, the Court should, while keeping in view the principle of administering justice openly, consider the advisability of excluding persons unconnected with the case from the Court room during the trial and in particular, when evidence to be given pertains to indecent details."
"Rule 377. Parties to any proceeding may, on Page 3 of 5 R/SCR.A/2321/2013 JUDGMENT application on the prescribed Court fee made to the Court having the custody of the record, obtain certified copies of any judgment, order, deposition, memorandum of evidence or any other document filed in the said proceedings.
The application shall state whether the copy applied for is required for private use or otherwise."
4. I have examined Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with Rule 142 of the Criminal Manual and these provisions clearly lay down that criminal court is an open court for the purpose of inquiring into any matter or trying any offence and public generally has an access to it. Provided that in any particular case, the Magistrate or the Judge may direct that public in general or any particular person may not be present in the Court or the case falls in other sub-sections of Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rule 377 of the Criminal Manual lays down that the parties to any proceeding can apply for obtaining certified copy of any judgment, order, deposition, memorandum of evidence or any other document filed in the said proceedings. It further says that the application for certified copy must state the purpose for which it is required whether for private use or otherwise. Therefore, the law is clear that an accused person or litigant has a right to obtain certified copy from the Court which is having the custody of the record. The expression 'roznama' (order-sheet) has not been specifically mentioned but it would be covered by the expression 'order sheet' as mentioned in Rule 377 of the Criminal Manual and therefore, an accused person or a litigant is entitled to apply for copy of the order-sheet (roznama) which has to be provided by the Judge or the Magistrate as the case may be. Though it has not come on record but assuming that in an application for certified copy it has not been stated that it is required for private use or otherwise, even then the Magistrate can direct the person who has applied for certified copy of the order to Page 4 of 5 R/SCR.A/2321/2013 JUDGMENT correct the application or he can reject the application with liberty to apply for a fresh certified copy of the order after clearly mentioning therein that copy applied for is for private use or otherwise, but straightway without any liberty to the applicant the application for certified copy of the order-sheet (roznama) cannot be rejected. Therefore, the order of the Magistrate cannot be sustained.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 4818 of 1997 is hereby quashed and set aside. A certified copy of the order-sheet (roznama) shall be provided to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) Ashish Tripathi Page 5 of 5