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

2012 Supreme(All) 1223

RAMESH SINHA, DHARNIDHAR JHA
RAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Amit Kumar Srivastava for the Petitioner; G.A. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—We had by our order dated 3.4.2012 directed the petition to be listed before us for deciding the issue as to whether an accused or a victim of an offence was entitled to a copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by a judicial Magistrate, if an application is duly made and the Court fee which is required for obtaining such a copy of such statement is paid by the desirous person.

2. It so happened that while hearing this petition, we are informed that it was in practise in the State of U.P. in various Courts that they refuse to supply the certified copies of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of a witness or the victim of an offence even if the party is willing to obtain a copy of such a document and is ready to pay the cost legally admissible for issuing the same.

3. We were in fact not ready to accept the contention. We were, prima facie, of the view that a statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was required to be recorded by a judicial Magistrate under that particular Section in due discharge of his judicial functions and, as such, the act of recording the statement was a judicial act which was performed by a public servant while discharging


















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