ORDER :

1. 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 vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2013 Cri. L.J. 78 and of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Guruvindapalli Anna Rao and Others vs. 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 vs. G. Krishnan, AIR 1961 Mad. 92, of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna, 2014 KHC 4321 and in Miss ‘A’ vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2020 (5) KHC 441 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Murugasami vs. State and Another, 2017 KHC 5630 and of the Single Benches of this Court in Shakkeer M.K. vs. State of Kerala, 2014 (3) KHC 759, Varghese M.U. vs. CBI, Cochin, 2015 (3) KHC 417 and Athulya vs. 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