2008 (2) TMI 854 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether the petitioner being a third party aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a sensational case under the Prevention of Corruption Act can seek for certified copies of the material records therein? Held that - The Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side 1965 does not apply to a case where a third party seeks certified copies of the records of the Trial Court which have not come to the High Court in connection with any case pending before this Court. The Right to Information Act 2005 created a dent in the so called privacy being so far maintained by the authorities concerned. The Courts also will have to be alive to the intendment of the Right to Information Act 2005 to share vital information to the parties concerned. Any narrower interpretation of the law and imposition of any restriction on the right of the third party to know what is actually going on at the portals of the criminal justice system will not advance the interest of justice. For all these reasons the Court finds that the documents sought for by the petitioners in C.C. No. 14 of 2004 will have to be granted to him.

Summary

Issues:
- Petition seeking certified copies of documents pertaining to a criminal case
- Interpretation of Section 363(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Rights of a third party to obtain certified copies of judgment or order of a Criminal Court
- Applicability of rules framed by the High Court for granting copies of judicial records
- Consideration of public interest and Right to Information Act, 2005

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Madras involved a petition seeking to set aside an order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, which declined to grant certified copies of documents related to a specific criminal case. The case in question, Special C.C. No. 14 of 2004, involved charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, resulting in the discharge of the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner, a former Public Prosecutor and Advocate, sought these documents to challenge the discharge before the High Court.

The dispute centered around the interpretation of Section 363(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the grant of copies of any judgment or order of a Criminal Court to third parties based on rules framed by the High Court. The petitioner argued that even in the absence of specific rules framed by the High Court, the provision should entitle a third party to obtain certified copies of relevant documents, citing a previous judgment by the High Court supporting this view.

The Government Advocate contended that the absence of specific rules framed by the High Court meant that the petitioner, as a third party, was not entitled to copies of documents from the Criminal Court. Concerns were raised about potential misuse of such documents and the risk of injustice if provided to unauthorized individuals. The Chief Judicial Magistrate's order was based on the premise that the petitioner did not fall under the category of persons "affected by the order" and was not a party concerned in the criminal proceedings.

The Court, after thorough deliberation, held that the failure of the High Court to frame rules as mandated by the Parliament should not deprive a third party of the right to obtain certified copies of judgment or order from a Criminal Court. Emphasizing the public nature of the documents sought and the importance of transparency in the criminal justice system, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The judgment underscored the significance of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in facilitating access to information without impeding the legal process.

Ultimately, the Court set aside the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order and directed the issuance of certified copies of all requested documents to the petitioner, recognizing the fundamental right of a third party to access relevant records in a criminal case.