The main legal point established in the judgment is the balancing of the rights of the accused and the larger interest of society in accessing certified copies of documents under Rule 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly in cases involving allegations of custodial torture.

JUDGMENT

For the Petitioner: Henri Tiphagne, Advocate. For the Respondent: T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the docket order, dated 06/04/2023 and consequently direct the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram to issue a certificate copies of the available documents sought for by the petitioner in CA No.164 of 2023 and pass such further or other orders.)

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the docket order, dated 06/04/2023 and consequently direct the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram to issue a certificate copies of the available documents sought for by the petitioner in CA No.163 of 2023 and pass such further or other orders.)

Common Order:

1. Both these criminal original petitions are filed to set aside the orders, dated 06/04/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram in the Copy Application Nos.163 and 164 of 2023 and for direction to the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram to issue the certified copies of the available documents.

2. A simple copy application.

But a lot of sensation, sensitivity and argument right from the Full Bench decision of this court reported in the case of Selvanathan @ Raghavan and 9 others Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Madras and others [1989(1)MWN (Cr) 117] and down to the recent judgment in the case of Karthik Dasari, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, IV Floor, Shastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006 Vs. The State by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai and others (Crl.OP Nos.5725 to 5727 of 2022, dated 30/03/2022).

3. At the time of hearing, this court found even the Senior Police Officers briefing the Additional Public Prosecutor in this matter. The reason for the above said unusual, this is yet another case of brutality alleged to have been exhibited by the Senior Police in the IPS rank, to the accused in both the matters.

4. No doubt, it has been widely published in the newspapers and now action has been initiated against the concerned officer Departmentally, an IAS Officer is appointed to conduct the enquiry. Apart from that, CBCID enquiry has also been ordered.

5. While moving these petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without sensitivity to the issue involved and without prompt spirit, the copy applications that have been filed by the petitioner in both Crime numbers namely Crime Nos.49 and 65 of 2023 returned.

6. On going through the order, this court could not find the nature of the order.

7. So, report was called for from the concerned court and it submitted stating that both the petitions have been returned since the petitioner is not entitled for copies of the documents sought for since no final report has been filed in both matters.

8. Against which, these petitions have been filed.

9. It is seen that without referring to the documents, which are available in the records and also the right of the petitioner to get copies of the documents, the above said return order has been made.

10. It is one thing to say that the above said order itself is per se illegal for the simple reason that the new Criminal Rules of Practice came into force in 2019 and elaborate procedures have been set out in it with regard to the entitlement of the parties and third parties to get the certified copies. So the trial court ought to have entertained the petitions and heard the petitioner as to the entitlement and the availability also. But nothing was done and a cryptic administrative order was passed by the trial returning the copy application. So the manner in which the above said matter has been dealt with the trial court, as mentioned earlier, is per se illegal.

11. When this court pointed out this to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the lea