Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J.

This interim application is filed by the petitioner in the above case.

2. Originally in the writ petition, the petitioner sought for writ of mandamus directing the State o Kerala to hand over investigation of crime No.59/11 of Kozhikode Town Police Station t Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). By interim order dated 27.9.2011, the High Court in th above matter decided to monitor the progress of the investigation of the case.

3. The Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as “SIT”) filed a report afte completion of the investigation. The report submitted by the SIT is kept in a sealed cove According to the petitioner, as it forms part of the records of the High Court, Rule 85 read wit 128 of Kerala High Court Rules provides entitlement of the petitioner to inspect the same an obtain copies of the said documents. In the absence of the records in question, not fallin within the ambit of Rule 90 of the High Court Rules, the petitioner is entitled for copy of th records i.e., the report which would enable the petitioner to assist the High Court to a large interest in arriving at a conclusion whether a fair and impartial investigation has bee conducted by the SIT or not.

4. The main writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation to find out the truth of th allegations contained in FIR No.59/11 of the said police station. When once SIT files forma report under Section 173 Cr.P.C before the competent Magistrate Court, there is no mor secrecy attached to the report, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed is the contentio of the petitioner.

5. According to the petitioner, large number of influential people are involved and the charge leveled against them are more serious, therefore, the scrutiny of the report in the light of th accompanying documents is highly essential to prevent miscarriage of justice, therefore, th petitioner seeks copies of the report and also the accompanying documents.

6. Per contra, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit through one Mr. Jaison K Abraham, member of Special SIT in Cr.No.59/11.

7. During the pendency of the above writ petition, when the above interim application came t be filed, according to the respondent-State, two sealed covers were submitted to the Court o 22.12.2011. In one cover, action taken report is submitted and the other cover contains origina case diary pertaining to the above said crime. The case was posted to several dates and o 6.3.2012, the petitioner sought for copy of the report and the accompanying documents. Bu the High Court directed the petitioner to file an application and accordingly, the presen application is filed. According to the first respondent – State, the petition is neither maintainabl nor the relief sought are sustainable on account of various reasons and facts which would b narrated hereinafter.

8. The Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes submission of final report on completion investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Except communicating the action taken by th Investigating Officer to the informant, no other duty is cast on the investigating Officer. Unde Sub-section 5 of Section 173 Cr.P.C. it is within the option of the Investigating Officer to furnis copies of all or any of the documents to the accused. Other than this provision, there is n prescription for supply of either copies of the documents or copy of the report to a third party The petitioner being a third party, is not entitled to have copies of the records or the document is the contention of the State.

9. So far as submission of the case diary and the report before the Court, it was only for th purpose of reference and scrutiny by the Court. As a matter of fact, submission of thes documents in sealed covers cannot be treated as ‘filing’ of those documents before the Cou as contemplated under the Rules, therefore, the petitioner being an outsider cannot seek fo copies of the records and the accompanying documents. Aft