Madras High Court
Tamilghanasambanthan vs State Represented By on 18 September, 2015
Author: S.Vimala
Bench: S.Vimala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.09.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.90 of 2015
Tamilghanasambanthan ... Petitioner
-vs-
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Avaniapuram Police Station,
Madurai.
Crime No.980/2005 ... Respondent
Petition filed under Section 401(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
against the order passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai, dated
22.01.2015 in Copy Application No.15973 of 2014 in Tr.C.M.P.No.7984 of 2014.
!For petitione : Mr.S.Sitharthan
^For respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy,
Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)
:O R D E R
Whether the remarks offered by the Lower Court to the High Court in response to remarks called for by the High Court, can be construed as portion of the record of a criminal case as contemplated under Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and that whether it must be furnished to the accused, is the issue raised in this revision petition.
2.Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, recites as under:
"Copies to be given to parties: 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."
3.Brief facts:
The petitioner herein, originally sought for transfer of the case in Tr.C.M.P.No.7984 of 2014 seeking transfer of C.C.No.237 of 2006 from the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai to any other Judicial Magistrate Court, within the Sessions Division. The Principal Sessions Judge called for remarks from the Judicial Magistrate and the learned Magistrate also has submitted his remarks. The petitioner herein sought for a copy of the report submitted, under Rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The Court below refused to entertain the request on the ground that the report of the Magistrate cannot be construed as part of the criminal Court records and that the accused is not entitled to copies of the report of the Magistrate.
4.Whether the Principal Sessions Judge is justified in refusing to furnish the copy of the remarks submitted by the Magistrate, is the main issue predominantly raised here.
5.Contending that the remarks offered by the Magistrate should be construed as part of the record of the criminal case and therefore, copy of the same should be given to the accused, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision reported in 2006 (4) CTC 481, in K.Ramaiah v. R.Sudhakara Naidu, whereunder it was held that the accused is entitled to certified copies of complaint and related documents, in a case pertaining to complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5.1. Whenever the Court calls for remarks from the concerned Lower Court, the remarks might have been submitted either based upon docket entries or it may be pertaining to matters unconnected with the case records. Say, for example, it may be relating to administrative problems or it may be pertaining to the perception of the Magistrate regarding the alleged bias etc. 5.2. In the case of Subramanian v. State through the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Cuddalore, reported in 1994(2) LW (Crl.) 773(1), it has been held that docket entry is also portion of record of a criminal case and it has to be furnished to the party on payment of proper stamp and authorised fee for copying.
5.3. So far as this case is concerned, when the relief sought for by the petitioner is regarding transfer of the case, in which the Lower Court has submitted its remarks, if the remarks pertain to the circumstances under which the transfer is sought for, certainly the petitioner is entitled to a copy, as he is entitled to comment upon the remarks made by the Magistrate. But if the reply of the Magistrate is purely on administrative reasons, then the petitioner may not have anything to comment upon. As stated already, if the remarks of the Magistrate is based upon docket entries, then the party is entitled to a copy, and if not, he is not entitled to. Therefore, depending upon the allegations made and depending upon the remarks received by the Court, it is for the Court to decide whether the remarks would form part of the records or not and subject to that, to decide whether copies should be furnished or not. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
5.4. So far as the present case is concerned, already the relief claimed has become infructuous as the concerned Magistrate against whom allegation is made, has already been transferred. Therefore, the contention raised in this revision petition is answered to the extent indicated above.
6.The Tr.CMP even though pending before the Sessions Judge, has become infructuous, and in order to avoid further wastage of time, the Tr.CMP No.7984 of 2014 is also dismissed as infructuous. Copy of the order should be communicated to the Sessions Judge.
6.1. This Criminal Revision Case stands answered accordingly.
To
1.The Inspector of Police, Avaniapuram Police Station, Madurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.