Stranger To Proceedings Not Entitled For Certified Copies Of Records As Of Right U/S 363 CrPC: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that under Section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), stranger to the proceedings is not entitled for certified copies of the records as of right.

A Petition was filed by a whistleblower at whose instance the Central Government assigned the investigation into the affairs of three companies namely Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, Cochin Minerals And Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

A Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed, “Section 363(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for grant of copies of any judgment or order of a criminal court to any person on payment, subject to such conditions as the High Court may, by rules, provide. Going by sub-section 5 of Section 363, a person affected by a judgment or order of a criminal court is also entitled for a copy of such judgment or order or deposition or other part of the record, on payment or otherwise. From a conjoint reading of sub-sections 5 and 6 of Section 363, along with Rules 222 and 226, it is clear that a stranger to the proceedings is not entitled for certified copies of the records as of right.”

The Bench said that as per Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, the applicant has to file a duly verified Petition, setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required, and the Court is bound to pass an Order on that Petition, except when the application is for certified copy of a Judgment.

Senior Advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana and Advocate Shinu J Pillai appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor Ajith Murali and Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) O.M. Shalina appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

Post investigation, SFIO had filed a complaint before the Additional Sessions Court and later, the Petitioner had submitted an application before the Special Court, seeking issuance of certified copies of the complaint, along with the accompanying documents. The Special Judge directed to issue certified copy of the complaint on usual terms, as there is no facility for giving copies of voluminous documents. The Petitioner also preferred an application seeking issuance of certified copies of the investigation report filed by the SFIO along with its annexures. The Special Judge ordered to issue the certified copies and accordingly, a copy of the investigation report was furnished to the Petitioner.

The prayer in the Petition before the High Court was to set aside the Orders and direct the Special Court to issue certified copies of all documents forming part of the complaint filed by the SFIO. When Petition came up for consideration, the Court directed the Registry to call for a report from the Special Court as to why copies of the documents cannot be issued, if the Petitioner is prepared to bear the expenses. At that stage, the CMRL being one of the Respondents in the complaint moved Petitions seeking to quash Orders by which the Special Court had directed to issue certified copies of the complaint and other documents.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “Indisputably, the orders under challenge are issued in purported exercise of the power under Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala ('the Rules' for short), formulated by the High Court for the guidance of all criminal courts in the State. Chapter XXV of the Rules deals with issuance of certified copies and Rule 222 therein provides for application of copies by parties, while Rule 226 permits submission of application for copies by strangers.”

The Court further said that Rule 226 only allows the stranger to apply for the copies and it is the duty of the Court concerned to consider the purpose set forth in the verified Petition and decide whether to issue the copies.

“Being vested with such a duty, the reason for allowing or rejecting the prayer for issuance of certified copies should be discernible from the order passed by the court”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the person concerned is entitled only for a copy of the investigation report and as the Petitioner is issued with a copy of investigation report pursuant to Order of the Special Court, the requirement of sub-section 13 of Section 212 of the Companies Act stands satisfied.

“… it is not necessary to decide whether the petitioner is an interested person and whether Section 212(13) of the Companies Act will prevail over Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. Suffice it to observe that, even accepting that an interested person can apply and obtain a copy of the investigation report by resorting to Section 212(13), insofar as the other documents are concerned, the submission of applications, their processing and the decision of the court can only be in accordance with Rule 226”, it remarked.

Conclusion

The Court also observed that insofar as the documents, the certified copies of which are applied for, are not public documents, the question whether issuance of copies will infringe the privacy of the Respondent/accused cannot also be overlooked.

“Therefore, in cases where the court finds a possibility of the privacy of the parties being infringed, they are bound to be put on notice about the application. I request the Rules Committee to consider this aspect and decide whether to amend Rule 226 of the Rules by empowering the court to call for objections from the affected persons in appropriate cases”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the CMRL’s Petition and quashed the impugned Orders.

Cause Title- Shone George v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:66503)

Click here to read/download the Judgment