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

1897 Supreme(Mad) 63

SHEPHARD, SUBRANMANIA.AIYAR, BENSON, ARTHUR COLLINS, KT.
Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Karuppayi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Arthur Collins, Kt., C.J.

1. In answering this reference to the Full Bench I intend to follow the exact words of the reference., The question is whether the accused had, from the moment of his accusation, a right .to inspect and obtain copies of the documents in question for the purpose of his defence. These documents are certain police reports including a charge sheet. The reference assumes that the documents are records of the acts of public officers submitted by them as required by law--see Sections 157, 168 and 173, Code of Criminal Procedure--and that they are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that any person interested in the subject matter of a public document has a right to inspect it and under Section 76, Evidence Act, has also the right to have a copy of such document supplied to him; but that is really the point the Full Bench has to decide. There appears no doubt that a person accused is a person interested in the documents referred to in Sections 157, 168 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the reports relate to the accusation against him; and if such reports are public documents he would be entitled to i
































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top