Every accused is entitled to obtain a free copy of the order/judgment passed in a given case, and there is no legal embargo for the petitioners to apply for the certified copy of the judgment.

1. The Petitioners/A1 and A2 have preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 18.01.2016 in Copy Application No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C. No.91 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi, Sivaganga District.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District, while passing the impugned order, on 18.01.2016, had observed that:-

'the accused after pronouncement of judgment, had not paid t he fine amount and also not signed in the documents and also escaped the punishment by means of their absconding'. Not obtained the free copies. Therefore, the Petitioners/Accused should appear in person and obtain the copies. In this connection, as against the Petitioners/Accused in Ilayankudi Crime No. 6 of 2016, a case was registered and the same was pending and since the Petitioners had absconded, dismissed the application'.

3. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 18.01.2016 in Copy Application No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C. No.91 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi, Sivaganga District, the Petitioners have focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court primarily contending that the impugned order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi is in complete negation of the principles of natural justice and it also affects the fundamental right of a person to life and liberty.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urges before this Court that the trial Court should have seen that the Petitioners are very much entitled to obtain the certified copies of the judgment in S.T.C. No.91 of 2015 dated 18.01.2016 passed by the trial Court and in this regard, there is no statutory bar dis-entitling the Petitioners to get the certified copies of the judgment.

5. While summing up, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners projects a legal plea that the very denial of the trial Court in dismissing C.A.No.16 of 2016 in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015, thereby curtailing the Petitioners to obtain the certified copies in question virtually crippled the Petitioners' right. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioners/Accused are entitled to get free copy of the judgment in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 on the file of trial Court and that free copy of the judgment can be supplied both to the accused and his learned counsel. Furthermore, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioners that the Petitioners in Law is entitled to apply for the certified copy of judgment in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ilayankudi and in this regard, the trial Court is not empowered in Law to negative the request made on behalf of the Petitioners/Accused in regard to the obtaining of copy of the judgment in S.T.C.No.91 of 2015.

6. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused seeks in aid of Rule 339 of 'THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND CIRCULAR ORDERS, 1958', whereby and whereunder, it is mentioned as follows:

“339. Copies to be given to parties.-(1) Copies of any portion of the record of a Criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment of the proper stamp and the authorised fee for copying. Where the Judge's notes form the only record of the evidence, copies of these notes be given.”

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners cites the decision of this Court (Rev. Samuel D. Stephens and ors. v. Pastor A. Samuel Ramasamy) reported in 2009 (1) MWN (Cr.) 298 at special page-305, wherein at paragraph-22, it is observed and held thus:-

22. A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, if it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under Section 204, Cr.P.C., that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall furnish to the accused a copy of each of the documents filed a long with the complaint. That Sections casts duty on the Court to furnish the