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

1958 Supreme(Kar) 85

Karnataka High Court
Judges : Nittoor Sreenivasa Rau
STATE OF MYSORE - Appellant
Versus
G.VEERANA GOUD - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case 11 Of 1956
Decided On : 10/28/1958
Advocates Appeared :
A.B.MARIYAPPA, B.Venkataswamy

Judgments of criminal courts are public documents, and every member of the public is prima facie interested in them.

Headnote:

Copy Application - Judgment - Section 548, Criminal Procedure Code - Summary

Fact of the Case:

Veerannagowda applied for a copy of a judgment in a criminal case, claiming to be a third party. The application was rejected by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Bellary, stating that the applicant was neither a party nor a witness and had not shown how he was affected by the judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The District Magistrate, in a reference, observed that judgments of criminal courts are public documents and every member of the public is prima facie interested in them. The court directed that the copy be given to the applicant.

Issues: The issue revolved around whether a person not party to the proceedings has the right to obtain a copy of a judgment from a criminal court.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment of a Court of law is a public document, and every member of the public is prima facie interested in it. Unless there is a specific reason to the contrary, there can be no reason to refuse a copy of a judgment.

Final Decision: The court directed that the copy applied for be given to the applicant.

( 1 ) ONE Veerannagowda applied to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Bellary, for a copy of the judgment in C. C. No. 1882/54. The applicant described himself as a third party apparently meaning thereby that he was not a party to the proceedings in the criminal case. This application was supported by an affidavit in which also the applicant stated that he was a third party and added that the copy was required for production in the District Court. The learned Magistrate rejected the copy application. The material part of his order runs as follows:

"section 548, Criminal Procedure Code, lays down that a person affected by a judgment of a criminal Court is entitled for a copy of the judgment. In this case the applicant is neither a party nor was a witness -- His affidavit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . that ho is a party is false. The purpose for which copy is applied for is not stated. Lastly, the applicant has not shown how he is affected. Hence application is rejected. "

Against this order, the applicant preferred a revision petition before the District Magistrate, bellary. The latter, after obtaining the remarks of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, has made the reference.

( 2 ) IN the course of the reference the learned District Magistrate observes that judgments of criminal courts are required by law to be delivered in open Court to which the public have a right of access, that if any member of the public can sit in Court while the judgment was delivered and hear it there is no reason why ho should not be entitled to take a copy of it. Ho then refers to the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the ruling of the Allahabad High court and indicates that in his view the ruling of the Allahabad High Court holding that every judgment of a Court lays down law to some extent or other and that every person belonging to the public is in some way or other affected by every judgment and that, therefore, he is entitled to it copy, indicates the correct position.

( 3 ) THE applicant has not appeared and the learned Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the Advocate General has supported the reference. The matter is undoubtedly one of importance, The judgment of a Court of law is a public document as defined in Section 74 of the evidence Act. Under Section 76 of that Act any person who has a right to inspect a public document can obtain a copy as a matter of right. But the Evidence Act itself does not indicate who has a right of inspection. Such right may be inherent or governed by other statutory provisionssection 548 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables any person affected by a judgment or order passed by a Criminal Court to obtain a copy of the Judge's charge to the Jury or of any order or deposition or other part of the record. The question in regard to the grant of a copy of a judgment to a person who was not a party to the proceedings came up for consideration in the case reported in Ladli Prasacl v Emperor, AIR 1931 All 364, in which Young J. , observed:

"as a matter of principle I am of opinion that the proceedings in, and specially the judgments of his Majesty's Courts ought to be accessible to the public, and unless by any statutory provision or by the rulings of any Court I am bound to the contrary, I would hold that it is the essence of the administration of justice that judgments affecting the rights, and more particularly the liberties, of the people should be made as public as possible, in order that the public at large might at leisure consider those judgments, either in their own interests or in the interests, in a criminal cause, of the condemned person; for it is only by such publicity that the public can be satisfied that the law is being properly administered by those responsible for its administration, and that abuses in the administration, which might occur if the fullest publicity was not given to the proceedings in a Court, may be avoided. "

This view has been endorsed in ILR (1956) Trav-C. 1303: (AIR 1957 T






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
whatsapp-icon Back to top