High CourtsSingle Bench

Channappa Andanappa Siddareddy and Others vs State

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 27 March 1980 · Citation: (1980) CriLJ 1022 : (1981) 1 KarLJ 235

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S. Patil, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 74, 76
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 517 of 1979
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 308 words
1.

This revision is directed against the order dated 22-9-1979 made by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Ron, in No. MAG. SR. 6/79 on the file of his court refusing to give certified copy of the F.I.R.

2.

The petitioners were arrested by the Police on the allegation that they were involved in some crime over a dispute of possession of land and produced before the Taluka Executive Magistrate. The Taluka Executive Magistrate ordered to release them on bail. Petitioner No. 7, Veerappa Hanumareddy Halli asked the Magistrate to furnish him the certified copy of the report given by the Police. He made an application to that effect and deposited Rs. 21/- towards the cost of the copy. The learned Taluka Executive Magistrate refused to give the copy applied on the ground it was not a public document, the petitioners have filed this revision.

3.

The F.I.R. being a record of the acts of the public officers prepared in discharge of the official duty is such a public document as defined u/s 74 of the Evidence Act. u/s 76 of the Evidence Act, every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect is bound to give such person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore. The petitioner No. 7 who applied having been produced before the Magistrate with the report of the Police, the Taluka Executive Magistrate was legally bound to give the copy asked for by him. He had no authority to refuse it. The refusal, therefore, is illegal, and reprehensible.

4.

The order of the Taluka Executive Magistrate refusing to give the copy is set aside and it is directed the copy shall be give to petitioner No. 7, who had applied for it, on payment of legal fees.

5.

Ordered accordingly.