Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
Section 74 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 76 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Citedby 3 docs
Court On Its Own Motion Through Mr. ... vs State on 6 December, 2010
Jayantibhai Lalubhai Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 13 March, 1992
Shyam Lal vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 13 February, 1998

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Karnataka High Court
Channappa Andanappa Siddareddy ... vs State on 27 March, 1980
Equivalent citations: 1980 CriLJ 1022, 1981 (1) KarLJ 235
Bench: M Patil

ORDER

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 under section 74 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 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 therefor. 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.