This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode in PCA. No. 405/2104 in Crime No.589/2012 of Chevayoor police station dismissing the application to issue certified copy Section 164 statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ' the Code).

2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner was arrayed as the accused in Crime No.589/2012 of Chevayoor police station. On 2.4.2014 he had applied for certified copy of the First Information Statement, First Information Report and statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code in Crime No.589/2012 of Chevayoor police station and it was numbered as PCA.No.405/2014 and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court, the learned Magistrate passed Annexure-B order and granted permission to issue certified copy of the First Information Statement and First Information Report alone, but rejected the prayer for issuing certified copy of Section 164 statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Magistrate. That is being challenged by the petitioner before this Court.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor after admitting the same considering the question of law raised in the matter.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 164 statement is a public document and once it is a public document, he is entitled to get certified copy of that document and there is no necessity to keep that document away from public. Further in the First Information Statement, nothing was mentioned about the petitioner and he wanted to ascertain whether the prosecutrix had stated anything about him in the further statement given by her before the learned Magistrate while recording the statement under Section 164 of the Code and being an accused, he had entitled to get the same. He had relied on a decision of this Court reported in Unnikrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala (2014 (1) KLT 146) and also a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Raju Janaki Yadav v. State of U. P. (2013 Cri LJ 78) and Kunjumuhammed & others v. State of Kerala (2014 (2) KLJ 860) in support of his case.

5. The petition was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that it cannot be treated as a public document as such and further, during the course of investigation when a statement is recorded under Section 164, it will become part of the case diary file till the final report is field and only if the prosecution wants to rely on those documents, then only that will become the right of the accused to get those documents, till then they are not entitled to get that document as of right.

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrayed as the accused in Crime No.589/2012 of Chevayoor police station. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of the request made by the investigating officer, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed a copy application for getting certified copy of the same along with other document and the learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the prayer to issue certified copy of the 164 statement of the prosecutrix and allowed the prayer for issuing certified copy of other documents. This is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition.

7. It is true that in the decision reported in Raju Janaki Yadav’s case (cited supra), the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code indicates performance of official and judicial function by a Magistrate as an official and as such it is public document and the accused is entitled to get the certified copy of the