JUDGMENT
D.G. Karia, J.
1. A short question that arises in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the complainant/informant in a criminal case is entitled to get copies of the relevant papers and documents, and particularly statements recorded by the police officers under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the purpose of availing of an opportunity of making submissions in respect of final report submitted by the Investigating Officer seeking “C” summary?
2. That short question arises in the backdrop of the following circumstances. The petitioner lodged a complaint against Swami Amar Jyoti Shyam and others for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 366, 368, 384 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Navrangpura police station. The said complaint came to be lodged as Cr. No. I 934 of 1987. The CID branch had taken over the investigation of the said offence on November 12, 1987. On completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted seeking for “C” summary on December 15, 1988. The complainant applied for the certified copy of the said final report and the same was furnished to him on January 5,1989. It appears that the petitioner was issued notice by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to show cause why the “C” summary as prayed for by the police should not be granted. The Investigating Officer also forwarded all the papers alongwith the index showing Exhs. 1 to 257 in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.
3. By the application dated January 13,1989 the complainant applied for copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under Sec 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of the investigation of the offences. The complainant submitted that in absence of the inquiry papers of the police, no proper submissions can be made by him. The complainant also pointed out Clause 377 of the Criminal Manual providing supply of such copies. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad by his order dated January 27, 1989 rejected the above application of the complainant for the copies of the documents holding that the demand of the complainant was improper and illegal. The petitioner complainant has therefore, approached this Court by way of the present petition assailing the aforesaid order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.
4. Mr. A.D. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that Section 173(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly contemplates that the Investigating Officer has to submit the report after completion of the investigation as to whether any offence appears to have been committed and if so by whom. When police officer submits his final report, the Court is required to hear the informant in the event the Court decides that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and to drop the proceedings. Section 173(3)(ii) of the Code contemplates that the Investigating Officer has to communicate to the informant the action taken by him. Thus, it contemplates the notice about investigation carried out by the police and the report submitted to him. Mr. Shah further submits that when the petitioner is issued a notice for making a representation, in respect of the report seeking “C” summary and is denied the relevant documents, the complainant would not be in a position to make a meaningful or effective submissions in absence of the relevant papers and documents and consequently hearing before the learned Magistrate would be an empty formality. Mr. Shah in this connection has relied upon the case of Bhagwatsinh v. Commissioner of Police, .
5. In the aforesaid case of Bhagwatsinh, the Supreme Court dealt with similar situation and held that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. Thus, if the informant or complainant is to be heard at the time of consideration of the report, and he is without adequate materials and police papers, it is obvious that he would not be in a position to make proper and effective submissions at the time of hearing of such final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The principles of natural justice do require that a person when required to participate in the proceedings must be provided adequate and proper documents which are relevant for the purpose of hearing. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad does not appear to be well founded. The learned Magistrate refused to grant the application of the complainant for copies of relevant police papers on the ground that such copies are not public documents and as such, the complainant is not entitled to get the same. The statements which are recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are acts of police officers or record of acts of a public officer. All documents which may be handed over to such public officers to substantiate the statements made to the police officers are also part and parcel of the record and acts of the police officers. The statements recorded and documents filed in support of the statements by the public officers would be public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. It cannot therefore, be said that the statements as recorded by the police officers are not recorded within the meaning of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. A perusal of Section 35 of the Evidence Act indicates that the record pursuant thereby is in a shape of a book or register or recorded which was required to be maintained by law. This provision would be confined to statutory books and registers and similar records and cannot be looked at for the purpose of giving colours to Section 74 of the Evidence Act. In this view of the matter, it is not understandable as to how the police statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be branded as private documents.
It appears that the learned Magistrate has not properly interpreted Clause 377 of the Criminal Manual. Chapter 12 of Criminal Manual pertains to copies and translation including cerified copies. Clause 377 reads as under:
377. Parties to any proceeding may, on application on the prescribed Court fee made to the Court having the custody of the record, obtain certified copies of any judgment, order, deposition, memorandum of evidence or any other document filed in the said proceedings.
(Emphasis supplied)
6. A plain reading of the aforesaid Clause 377 makes it clear that the parties to the proceedings may apply for the certified copies of any judgment, order, deposition, memorandum of evidence or any other document filed in the said proceedings. It is not in dispute that the statement of the witnesses recorded by the investigating agency are not the documents filed in the proceedings wherein the petitioner-complainant has to make his submissions about the grant or refusal of “C” summary. The aforesaid words “or any other documents filed in such proceedings” occurring in the above Clause 377 will include the copies of the police statements which are filed in the proceedings. Therefore, the interpretation adopted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that copies of police statements are not included in the above Clause 377 cannot be accepted. Any document filed in the proceedings shall include the papers relating to the investigation and the statements recorded by the police.
7. In the above view of the matter, the judgment and findings recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be sustained. The petition therefore, deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed and set aside. The application of the petitioner at mark M/16 is hereby granted. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad is hereby directed to supply the copies of the police statements and other documents as prayed for by the petitioner at his costs. Interim relief stands vacated. Rule is accordingly made absolute.