The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in Crime No.

478/2019 of Ezhukone Police Station, which has been registered for

offences punishable under Secs. 451, 341, 354, 354D and 509 of the

I.P.C. It is stated that the statement of the petitioner has been

recorded by the competent Magistrate concerned. The statement of

the petitioner, as the defacto complainant in this case, is stated to

have been duly recorded by the competent Magistrate in terms of the

provisions contained in Sec.164 of the Cr.P.C. According to the

petitioner, she needs a copy of of said Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement

given by her and for that purpose, she has submitted an application

as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3048/2019 before the Judicial

First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kottarakkara, who is dealing with the

case in the abovesaid crime, for issuance of a ertified copy of her

abovesaid Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

2.

The learned Magistrate by the impugned Anx. A-1 order

dated 2.8.2019 has rejected the said plea on the ground that

final report has not so far been submitted in this case. It is this

Crl.M.C.7191/19

- : 3 :-

order at Anx.A-1 that is under challenge in this Criminal

Miscellaneous Case. The prayers in this Crl.M.C. filed under Sec. 482

of the Cr.P.C. are as follows:

“1.

Issue appropriate directions directing the JFMC-1,

Kottarakkara, where in Crime No. 478/2019 to the

petitioner to furnish copy of the statement recorded under

section 164 Criminal Procedure Code.

2.

Pass such other and further reliefs, as may be prayed for

hereafter and deemed fit and proper, in the interest of

justice.”

3.

Heard Ms.B.Kalliani Krishna, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner (defacto complainant) and Sri. T.R.Renjith, learned

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

4.

Ms.B.Kalliani Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner defacto complainant would point out that statement

recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the competent Magistrate is

a public document and that according to Sec.76 of the Indian

Evidence Act, every public officer having the custody of a public

document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that

person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor,

together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a

true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and

such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his

Crl.M.C.7191/19

- : 4 :-

name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer

is authorized by law to make use of a seal and such copies so certified

shall be called certified copies. Further that since the said statement

is public document, the copy of the same is to be furnished to an

applicant on payment of prescribed fee thereof. Further, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that it is

mandated in Sec. 154(2) of the Cr.P.C. that a copy of the information

so recorded under Sec. 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. shall be given forthwith

free of cost to the informant. Accordingly, it is urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the abovesaid provision made by the

Parliament in Sec. 154(2) of the Cr.P.C., though it is in the context of

the statement made by the first informant under Sec. 154 of the

Cr.P.C., would throw light about the legislative policy and that the

applicant is entitled, as of right, to get a certified copy of the Sec. 164

statement, etc.

5.

In the decision in Naresh Kumar Yaday v. Ravindra

Kumar & ors. [(2008) 1 SCC 632], the Apex Court, while discussing

the scope of ambit of Sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C. has observed that the

accused and the informant therein have referred to several portions of

the case diary. In the said decision, the Apex Court has observed that

Crl.M.C.7191/19

- : 5 :-

it is baffling to note that the accused and the informant referred to

particular portions of the ca