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

2022 Supreme(Ker) 509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Saritha S. Nair, D/o Indira Nair – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondents
Crl.MC No. 4130 of 2022
Decided on : 10-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BIJU ANTONY ALOOR,K.P.PRASANTH VISHNU DILEEP, T.S.KRISHNENDU ARCHANA SURESH, MOHAMED AMEER M. SHEHALLA M. BASHEER
For the Respondent: JAISHANKAR V. NAIR, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, AMICUS CURIAE

Point of Law: In eye of law, every person has a right to inspect public documents, provided he shows that he is individually interested in them.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 74, 74(1) (iii), 76 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Sections 16, 17 and 18 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 44, 44(1)(d)(ii) and 45 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 2(17) - 'Public Officer’ - Machinery for record of such confessions and statements - Seeking a copy of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C - Whether accused/victim is entitled to copies of statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C on premises that said statement is a public document - Recording statement under Section 164 of Cr. P.C indicates performance of an official and judicial function by a Magistrate and, as such, statement so recorded assumes character of a public document (Para 11).

Findings of the Court: Petitioner alleges that accused No.2, in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, might have made certain imputations against her - Petitioner submitted that petitioner has compelling reasons to believe that accused No.2 in statement has alleged her of having conspired with Chief Minister and others to trap accused No.2 after her remarks against Government. These are only mere apprehensions of petitioner - Petitioner could not show any factual basis for said apprehensions - Petitioner could not say how did she come to know that there were imputations against her in statement. She could not show any real or substantial interest in document. interest projected is speculative and conjectural - That apart, further investigation is still going on. supplementary complaint is yet to be filed. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get copies of statement sought. impugned order, thus, does not warrant any interference.

Result: Crl.M.C dismissed.

ORDER :

Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code a public document falling under Section 74(1) (iii) of the Indian Evidence Act?

Is a stranger to the proceedings entitled to a copy of the same under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act? These are the important questions that fall for consideration in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

2. The Enforcement Directorate registered an Enforcement Crime Investigation Report as ECIR/KCZO/31/2020 against three accused on 13/07/2020 under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. After investigation, a prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PMLA’) was filed at the Special Court (PMLA), Ernakulam on 6/10/2020 reserving the liberty to file a supplementary complaint, if any. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and numbered the case as SC No.610/2020. After further investigation, a supplementary prosecution complaint was filed against the accused No.4 reserving right to file additional supplementary complaint as provided under Section 44(1)(d)(ii) of PMLA. Further investigation is in progress. During its course, the accused No.2 gave a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C on 06/06/2022 and 07/06/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam.

3. The petitioner herein who is alleged to be a witness in the above case filed an application at the Special Court seeking a copy of the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C given by the accused No.2. According to the petitioner, the accused No.2, in her statement had made certain imputations against her for which she intends to pursue a legal remedy.

4. The Special Court vide Annexure 1 order turned down the prayer holding that the petitioner being a third party to the proceedings is not entitled to the copy at this stage. The said order is under challenge in this Crl. M.C.

5. Considering the importance of the question of law involved, Adv. Dheerendrakrishnan was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court.

6. I have heard Sri. B.A. Aloor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Jaishankar V.Nair, the learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement as well as Sri.K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned amicus curiae.

7. Sri. B.A. Aloor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the statement of the accused No.2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C is a public document and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get a copy. He placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Raju Janaki Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2013 Crl LJ 78) and of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Guruvindapalli Anna Rao and Others v. State of A.P (2003 KHC 2656). Sri. Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned amicus curiae, submitted that the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C gets the status of a public document only after cognizance is taken by the court. The learned amicus curiae further submitted that only a person who can show that he has a substantial interest in the public document is entitled to a copy of the same. He relied on the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. G. Krishnan (AIR 1961 Mad 92), of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna (2014 KHC 4321) and in Miss ‘A’ v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2020 (5) KHC 441), of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Murugasami v. State and Another (2017 KHC 5630), and of the Single Benches of this Court in Shakkeer M.K v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KHC 759), Varghese M.U v. CBI, Cochin (2015 (3) KHC 417) and Athulya v. State of Kerala (2019 (5) KHC 920) in support of his submission. Sri. Jaishankar V.Nair, the learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, submitted that the further investigation is in progress and as such, the statement of the accused No.2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.

    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