In This Modern Era Of Right To Information & Transparency, There Can Be Nothing Confidential About Property Register Maintained In Public Office: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court remarked that there can be nothing confidential about a property register maintained in a public office like a court of law in this modern era of right to information and transparency.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a 71-year-old man against the State, seeking certified copy of the property register.

A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said, “In this modern era of right to information and transparency there can be nothing confidential about a property register maintained in a public office like a court of law. It needs no mention that the property register is one of the key registers to be maintained by a criminal court. In this context, it needs to mention that Form 23 in Appendix II deals with the “Register of Property Produced in Inquiries and Trials”. The register falls under the category of ‘Administrative Forms’.”

The Bench added that though the property register falls under the category of administrative forms under the Rules, the said category or nomenclature of the form is not determinative of the character of the record as a judicial or non-judicial record.

Advocate C.S. Manu appeared for the petitioner while Public Prosecutor Sreeja V appeared for the respondent.

Factual Background -

The petitioner’s application for obtaining a certified copy of the property register, relating to property produced in the court was dismissed by the Magistrate relying upon Rule 225 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala 1982. The said refusal was assailed in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. The petitioner was the accused in a case before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

He was indicted for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 323, 324, 308, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). When the aforesaid case was posted for trial, the petitioner applied to obtain a certified copy of the property register. However, the Magistrate dismissed his application stating that it is a register kept in the office of the court and it is a non-judicial record as per Rule 225 of the 1982 Rules. Hence, he was aggrieved by such decision.

The High Court in the above regard observed, “The restriction for issuing certified copies, as is discernible from the above extracted rule, is only in respect of correspondences or proceedings which are confidential or are not strictly judicial. Even with respect to those documents, under the orders of the court, certified copies can be given. Thus, under the orders of the Court, a certified copy of any document can be given, provided the court grants permission to that effect.”

The Court noted that the document sought for by the petitioner is a property (thondi) register in relation to the property and the said property is apparently related to the case under trial. It further said that as an accused in a criminal trial, if petitioner believes that the said document is essential to put up his defence, the court cannot stand in his way in producing the document.

“Therefore, it is legally improper to deny issuing a certified copy of such a document especially when the same is retained in a public office. … Having regard to the significance a property register holds in the administration of justice, this Court is of the opinion that the property register is a judicial record”, it held.

The Court enunciated that even otherwise, Rule 225 of the Rules restricts correspondences and proceedings, which are confidential or are not strictly judicial and the property register relating to a property produced in a criminal case is not a confidential document or a record of proceedings which has to be protected from disclosure.

“The property register cannot fall into such a category and the trial court went wrong in refusing to permit grant of a certified copy. … Though in the application, the petitioner sought the entire property register upto December 2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly confined his prayer to a certified copy of the specific entry relating to T-582/2011. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to be issued a certified copy of the property register relating to T-582/2011”, it also emphasised.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the original petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the issuance of certified copy of the property register to the petitioner without delay.

Cause Title- P.B. Sourbhan v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:45966)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates C.S. Manu, Dilu Joseph, C.A. Anupaman, T.B. Sivaprasad, C.Y. Vijay Kumar, Manju E.R., Anandhu Satheesh, Alint Joseph, Paul Jose, Amal M., and Dainy Davis.

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Sreeja V

Click here to read/download the Judgment