IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that parties are entitled to readable copies of depositions when original documents are illegible, promoting transparency and justice.

JUDGMENT :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Petitioner seeks a direction to provide him with readable copies of the depositions of witnesses in S.C. No.76/2010 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, and also its official translations.

2. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC as per judgment in the aforementioned sessions case, which was affirmed by this Court in Crl.Appeal No.787/2016. Petitioner intends to prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court. Since copies of the depositions of the trial court are indecipherable, he applied to the Sessions Court to provide him with legible copies of the depositions. By Ext.P2 communication dated 11.06.2024, the said request was refused, stating that the rules do not permit the issuance of readable copies.

3. I have heard Smt. Ahalya Prakash. K.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C.N. Prabhakaran, learned Public Prosecutor.

4. When the case came up for consideration, this Court directed the Registry of the High Court to verify whether readable copies were available in the file relating to the criminal appeal. Pursuant to the said direction, it was informed by the Registrar (Judicial) that after the appeal was disposed of, the entire trial court records were returned to the trial court on 07.10.2021.

5. A readable copy of the deposition is prepared in original when the trial court files are transmitted to the High Court as per Rule 262 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982. The readable copies are prepared to enable the appellate or revisional courts to decipher the depositions without difficulty. Since the depositions written by the Presiding Officers of the Criminal Courts are many a times illegible, it is essential to prepare readable copies, before transmitting the files to the appellate court.

6. In the decision in Rajmohan Pillai J. v. CBI Kerala [2016 (3) KLT 665], it was observed by a learned Single Judge that, readable copies are prepared by the Registry for the advantage of the Appellate Court especially when the depositions are not easily decipherable. The readable copies are prepared after the proceedings in the Trial Court are over and when the file is prepared for transmission to the Appellate Court. It was observed in the aforesaid case that since readable copies are not copies of a proceeding or a document filed in or in the custody of the Court, they will not fall within the category of documents that are part of the proceeding of the Trial Court nor a document filed in or in the custody of the Court. It was also observed that certified copies can be issued only in relation to those records or documents that are original and which form part of the records of the case and not a copy of the original.

7. However, in a later decision in Sudheer T. M. v. State of Kerala [2017 (1) KLD 687], another learned Single Judge directed that a certified copy of the readable copy of the depositions be provided upon, noticing that prejudice would result, if such a copy is not served.

8. In the instant case, though readable copies prepared in original would be available in the files re-transmitted to the trial court, the request for certified copies of such documents was denied. In these modern times, when the right to information has gained statutory recognition, this Court is of the view that in appropriate cases, readable copies, if prepared, must be given to parties on their application, especially when the original deposition is not readable. This is especially so, when such readable copies have been prepared and have become part of the records of the court after their use in the High Court and re- transmitted to the trial court. No purpose would be served in denying such copies that have already been prepared and are part of the records.

9. Procedure has always been regarded as the handmaid of justice. Non-decipherable depositions would not advance the cause of justice and on the other hand, su