S G NAGABHUSHAN RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is in an Advocate. He appears for the complainant in PC.16 of 1974 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Smdhnur. The petitioner is blind. Henece, he made an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindhnur, to allow him to record the proceedings of the Court with the aid of a tape-recorder in order to facilitate the conduct of the case. The learned Magistrate rejected the above application. Hence this petition.

(2.) At the outset it should be mentioned that there is no statutory provision or a rule of practice which authorises a Counsel or a party in a proceeding before a Court to have the proceedings of the Court recorded on a tape. Hence the question of issuing any writ in the nature of mandamus or other direction to the Judicial Magistrate does not arise.

(3.) It is, however, argued by Mr.M.S.Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the order of the Magistrate refusing to permit the petitioner to make use of a tapet-recorder is violative of the Art.19(1) (g) of the Constn. It is contended that the order imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on his profession I do not agree. It is admitted that the petitioner has been practising in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for some time past and he has been able to carry on his profession with the aid or assistance or another Counsel who reads to him the records of the cases. For the first time the petitioner has been engaged in a original proceeding where witnesses would be examined and cross-examined in the case in which the impugned orrder is passed.