SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Kar) 77

Karnataka High Court
CHANNAPPA ANDANAPPA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Decided On : 03-27-80

The F. I. R. is a public document as defined under the Evidence Act, and every public officer having custody of it is bound to provide a copy on demand.

Headnote:

Certified Copy - F. I. R. - The court held that the F. I. R. is a public document as defined under S. 74 of the Evidence Act, and every public officer having custody of it is bound to give a copy on demand. The refusal to provide the certified copy was deemed illegal and reprehensible.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were arrested over a land dispute and produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Petitioner No. 7 requested a certified copy of the F. I. R. but the magistrate refused, stating it was not a public document.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the F. I. R. is a public document as defined under the Evidence Act and the magistrate was legally bound to provide the copy. The refusal was deemed illegal and set aside.

Issues: Refusal to provide certified copy of F. I. R.

Ratio Decidendi: The F. I. R. is a public document and every public officer having custody of it is bound to provide a copy on demand.

Final Decision: The order of the Taluka Executive Magistrate refusing to provide the copy was set aside, and it was directed that the copy shall be given to petitioner No. 7 on payment of legal fees.

M. S. PATIL, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision is directed against the order dated 22-9-1979 made by the Taluk executive Magistrate, Ron, in No. MAG sr. 6/79 on the file of his Court refusing to give certified copy of the F. I. R.

( 2 ) THE petitioners were arrested by the police on the allegation that they were involved in some crime over a dispute of possession of land and produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. The taluka Executive Magistrate ordered to release them on bail. Petitioner No. 7 veerappa Hanumareddy Halli, asked the magistrate to furnish him the certified copy of the report given by the Police. He made an application to that effect and deposited Rs. 21 towards the cost of the copy. The learned Taluka Executive magistrate refused to give the copy applied on the ground it was not a public document, the petitioners have filed this revision.

( 3 ) THE F. I. R. being a record of the acts of the public officers prepared in discharge of the official duty is such a public document as defined under S. 74 of the Evidence act. Under S. 76 of the Evidence Act every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect is bound to give such person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor. The petitioner no. 7 who applied having been produced before the Magistrate with the report of the Police, the Taluka Executive magistrate was legally bound to give the copy asked for by him. He had no authority to refuse it. The refusal, therefore, is illegal, and reprehensible. The order of the Taluka Executive magistrate refusing to give the copy is set aside and it is directed the copy shall be given to petitioner No. 7, who had applied for it, on payment of legal fees.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top