IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.40684/2017(GM-Res) BETWEEN:
S.SATISH KUMAR, S/O.LATE D.Y.SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, MANASA, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE – 16.
(BY SRI.K.S.NAGARAJA RAO, ADV.) AND:
THE REGISTRAR, HON’BLE CITY CIVIL COURT, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE – 1 (BY SRI.T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA) ... PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DATED 18.08.2017 IN REJECTING THE COPY APPLICATION IN P.C.R. NO.52440/2017 IN CRIME NO.188/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE –A BY DIRECTING THE HON’BLE MAGISTRATE COURT TO ISSUE THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS, MOU DATED 09.07.2012 (DOCUMENT NO.1) AND COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 21.09.2015 (DOCUMENT NO.II) WHICH ARE PART OF THE SAID COMPLAINT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the order dated 18.08.2017 passed in PCR No.52440/2017 rejecting the copy application of the petitioner be quashed and a direction be issued to provide certified copy of the documents viz., the Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.07.2012 and the Agreement of Sale dated 21.09.2015.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in PCR No.52440/2017 relating to Cr.No.188/2017. In the said proceedings, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.07.2012 and the Agreement of Sale dated 21.09.2015 is available on record. In that light, the petitioner herein has filed an application seeking for copy of the said documents. The learned Judge of the Court below while taking note of the said application through the order dated 18.08.2017 has rejected the request of the petitioner. Though the decision of this Court in the case of J.R.R. Naidu –vs- Registrar, City Civil Courts (ILR 1992 KAR 2700) was cited before the Court below, the Court below was of the opinion that the same would not be applicable in the present circumstance, since the document a copy of which sought is a photocopy of the document. The document as available on record no doubt is a photocopy which is a part of the record. In that circumstance, even if a certified copy is to be issued to the petitioner, the certification would have to be to the effect that the certified copy generated is from a photocopy. Therefore when such certification could be made, there is no justification to reject the request for a copy, more particularly when the applicant for such copy is an accused in the same proceedings and is seeking for the document available on record in the same proceedings.
3. In that regard, a perusal of the judgment of the High Court Judicature at Madras in Crl.OP.No.22929/2007 dated 03.09.2007 would indicate that the learned Judge by relying on the earlier Judgments of that Court has held that rejection of the application on the ground that the documents of which the copy is sought are photocopies would not be justified and a direction was issued to provide the copies.
4. Therefore in the instant case also, the order impugned dated 18.08.2017 is set aside. A direction is issued to provide the certified copy of the documents as referred to above. It is made clear that the Court below while issuing the said copies could make an endorsement that the documents issued are the certified copies generated from the photocopy available on the records.
With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms