The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner had the right to obtain certified copies of the police refer charge-sheet and the order passed thereon as they were public documents and he had the right to inspect them under S.76 of the Evidence Act.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition by one V. J. Thomas is directed against the order dated 23-8-1969 by the Sub Magistrate, Chengannur, refusing to issue certified copies of (1) Police Refer Charge-sheet in Crime No. 94/68 of the Chengannur police station, and (2) the order passed thereon by the Sub Magistrate on the basis of his copy application dated 7-8-69.

2. The facts which led to the filing of this Revision Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the owner of a car MSW. 5585, which was driven by a driver employed by the petitioner. On 24-5-68 when the driver was taking out the car, there was an accident in which one Varkey Annamma sustained injuries as a result of the car dashing against her. On that account she lodged a first information in the police station, Chengannur, and the Sub Inspector in-charge of the police station registered Crime No. 94/68 against the driver of the car for his rash and negligent driving which resulted in injuries to the first informant. But, after investigation, the police officer came to the conclusion that it was only an accident and, therefore, he filed a refer charge sheet under S.173 (1) Cr. P.C. before the Sub Magistrate, Chengannur. The Sub Magistrate sent a notice of that refer charge sheet to Varkey Annamma, who, however, did not choose to file any objection thereto. Therefore, the Sub Magistrate passed an order thereon dropping the prosecution against the driver of the car. Afterwards, Varkey Annamma filed a claim in forma pauperis before the Munsiff, Chengannur for damages from the present petitioner, who was impleaded as the 1st defendant in the damage claim as well as from the driver of the car impleaded as 2nd defendant. While the claim was thus pending, the present petitioner moved the Munsiff to send for the records of the proceedings in Crime No. 94/68 from the court of the Sub Magistrate, Chengannur. The Munsiff wanted (1) First information statement, (2) F.I.R, (3) Refer charge-sheet, and (4) the order passed thereon by the Sub Magistrate. Along with this intimation, the petitioner also filed a verified petition duly stamped before the Sub Magistrate claiming the certified copies of the documents referred to above in Crime No. 94/68. A list of documents required to be copied had also been appended to the petition filed on 7 8 69. The learned Magistrate allowed certified copies of document Nos.1 and 2, but refused certified copies of document Nos. 3 and 4. The order passed on 23 8 69 refusing to issue the certified copy of the police refer chargesheet and the order passed thereon by the Sub Magistrate reads as follows:

"Sri V. J. Thomas, Vettiyattuputhenpurayil house, Paippadu Muri, Thrikkodithanarn Village is hereby informed that copies of the refer charge-sheets and order thereon in refer No. 7/69 of this court (Crime No. 94/68 of Chengannur Police Station) cannot be granted as per R.26 of the Sub Section VII of the Manual of instructions for the guidance to Magistrates in Madras State which is also made applicable in Kerala State. Therefore the application dated 7 8 69 for the certified copies of refer charge sheets and order thereon, is rejected."

3. Sub-section (vii) of R.26 of the Manual of the instructions for the guidance of the Magistrates in the Madras State referred to in the order was made long before the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code in 1955. There was no indication as to whether these rules of guidance had been brought into force in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin area of the Kerala State. It is also important to note that these instructions have no statutory force though they were published as ancillary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to the Criminal Rules of Practice. Sub-section (vii) of R.26 referred to above reads as follows:

"Copies of referred charge-sheets should on no account be granted to the complainant or any member of the public whatever his connection with the case may have been."

But, no suc