PARASHURAM DETARAM SHAMDASANI Vs. HUGH GOLDING COCKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order made by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Sixth Court, refusing the applicant leave to inspect the record in certain criminal proceedings in that Court.

(2.) IT appears that the applicant lodged a complaint against the auditors of the Central Bank, and after the matter had proceeded for a considerable time, the applicant was absent from Court at one hearing, and the accused were discharged. The applicant now says that he wants to inspect the orders made by the Court in those proceedings, the depositions of witnesses, and the exhibits in the case in order to make up his mind whether he should lodge a fresh complaint; and the question is whether he has a right to such inspection.

(3.) BUT in 1934 this Court framed a rule under Section 554, which is Criminal Circular No.160-A, and is in these terms: (i) Subject at all times to the convenience of the Court and subject, to such regulations as the Presiding Officer of the Court may make in order to ensure the safety of the record, parties to a Criminal Proceeding when they are not represented and their pleaders or advocates when they are represented are entitled, on payment of the prescribed fees, to inspect, the papers exhibited in the said proceeding. In no case shall the original papers be removed from the office. The expression "papers exhibited in the proceeding" seems to me to be an unfortunate one. It is neither a technical expression, nor a popular one. If the phrase used had been "exhibits", that would have been a technical expression, but it would have included many things which are not papers. Many articles are exhibited in criminal triala which are not papers, and it is difficult to see why a party interested should not be entitled to inspect an article exhibited. I think, probably the expression was intended to cover the whole record, but even if it be confined, as the opponents contend in this case, to papers which are exhibited in the evidence of witnesses, so as not to include copies of depositions or orders of the Court, I am of opinion that the rule is not exclusive. It does not deprive the Court of the right which it previously enjoyed of granting inspection of the whole record to a party properly entitled thereto; and in revision we are entitled to consider whether the learned Magistrate exercised his discretion on the right ground. He has not given any reason for holding that the applicant is not entitled to inspect the record in this case, and I do not myself see any ground on which the applicant can be refused such right. He is clearly entitled under Section 538, as a person affected by the order of the learned Magistrate discharging the accused, to require certified copies of the orders, depositions and other part of the record. It seems to me to be altogether unreasonable to insist that he must take certified copies of documents in order to determine whether he really wants such copies. The more rational course is to allow him to inspect the documents in order to make up his mind whether he wants to have certified copies or not.