Right to a readable certified copy of deposition recognized to prevent prejudice in legal proceedings.

1. The petitioner is the complainant in CMP No. 2944 of 2016 filed under S.190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Kakkanad.

2. In the aforesaid complaint, he has raised allegations against the Social Welfare Officer and others under S.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act,2015. It appears that the said complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. With a view to challenge the order of dismissal, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of his deposition. The said application was allowed and a certified copy was issued to the petitioner. However, since the handwriting of the learned Magistrate is illegible, he was unable to decipher the contents. The petitioner in the said circumstances filed an application seeking for issuance of a readable copy of the deposition, duly certified. The same was rejected holding that there is no provision in the Criminal Rules of Practice for issuing readable copy of the deposition. The same is under challenge.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel would rely on the decisions of this Court in Suseelan (Dr.) v. State of Kerala and Another, 2013 (4) KHC 897 : 2014 (1) KLD 25 : 2014 (1) KLJ 214, Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunjumole G. and Others, 2012 (4) KHC 662 : 2012 (4) KLT 785 : 2013 (1) KLJ 197, Muhammed Kunhi A. K. v. Muhammed Haji and Others, 2014 (3) KHC 750 : 2014 (2) KLD 545 : 2014 (3) KLT 1027 : 2014 (3) KLJ 793 and Rajmohan Pillai J. v. CBI, Kerala, 2016 (4) KHC 47 : 2016 (2) KLD 311 : 2016 (3) KLT 665 : ILR 2016 (3) Ker. 745 and also various circulars issued by this Court to contend that the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would further submit that in Annexure - 1 order, the learned Magistrate while dismissing his complaint had observed that the complainant had no case that he had direct knowledge of the averments made in the complaint. According to the learned counsel, this fact was specifically stated but as the deposition is indecipherable, he is unable to raise that contention in appropriate proceedings.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through Annexure - 2 copy of the deposition. I have no doubt in my mind prejudice would result if a readable copy is not served. Certain sentences are clearly not decipherable and in that view of the matter, it is only just and proper that a readable copy properly certified is issued to the petitioner. Annexure - 3 order will stand set aside. CA No. 626 of 2016 in CMP No. 2944 of 2016 will stand allowed. Certified readable copy of the deposition of the petitioner shall be issued expeditiously.