Madras HC allows voter to examine Court records of disproportionate assets case acquitting Social Welfare & Women Empowerment Minister Geetha Jeevan

“If the Investigating Agency decides not to prefer the appeal against acquitted person, then a person who has interest in the case, which primarily involves misconduct of a public servant who happened to be an elected member in the democratic process, in which, that person is a voter, have a say, and he cannot be deprived of the advantage of perusing the records and arrive at a conclusion.”

Madras High Court

Madras High Court: In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the docket order and consequently to direct the Principal Session Court to furnish the certified copies of the documents as sought by the petitioner in a case, Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. while setting aside the impugned order, directed the petitioner to file a fresh third-party petition with an affidavit. On such an application, the Court below was directed to furnish the copies which the petitioner is entitled to as per Rule 210 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy application.

Background:

In the present case, P Geetha Jeevan, the Minister for Social Welfare and Women Empowerment in Tamil Nadu, who was prosecuted for offence under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), was acquitted

The petitioner has made a third-party application seeking copies related to a case which ended in acquittal. The application was rejected stating that the reason found in the affidavit seeking certified copy of the documents, was not satisfactory. Aggrieved, the present petition is filed seeking direction to set aside the said order and direct the court below to furnish the certified copies sought for.

Issue: Whether the third party can be furnished with certain copies of the documents in the custody of the Court?

Analysis and Decision:

After referring to Rules 210, 211 and 212 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, the Court noted that the Rule provides a right to third party to get certified copies of the judgment or order of any proceeding or document in the custody of the court. However, the said right is subject to file a supporting affidavit setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required.

The Court said that the petitioner, being voter in the Thootukudi Assembly Constituency, has the right to know about the details of the judgment and to examine the judgment, he needs the documents listed in the petition.

The Court said that the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the politician prosecuted by specialised agencies got the advantage of acquittal. The discretion to file an appeal against acquittal mostly depends upon whether the said politician is part of the real dispensation or not. If the Investigating Agency decides not to prefer the appeal against acquitted person, then a person who has interest in the case, which primarily involves misconduct of a public servant who happened to be an elected member in the democratic process, in which, that person is a voter, have a say, and he cannot be deprived of the advantage of perusing the records and arrive at a conclusion that his representative has been falsely prosecuted or his representative has gained un-meritoriously acquittal. Both cannot be set upon to decide whether his interest to get the copies of the judgment and other records is not bonafide or not satisfactory.

Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh third-party petition with an affidavit. On such an application, the court below was directed to furnish the copies which the petitioner is entitled to as per Rule 210 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy application.

[S.Shanmugasundaram v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2558, decided on 13-06-2024]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioners: K. Jeyamohan

For Respondents: Government Advocate (Crl.Side) K.M.D. Muhilan

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE

Code of Criminal Procedure

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE

penal code, 1860

Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988   HERE

prevention of corruption act, 1988

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *