Voter Cannot Be Deprived Of Advantage Of Perusing Court Records Involving Misconduct Of Elected Member In Disproportionate Assets Case: Madras HC
The Madras High Court held that a voter could not be deprived of the advantage of perusing the court records involving misconduct of an elected member of the State in a disproportionate assets case.
The petitioner sought the Court’s direction to set aside a previous docket order and compel the Trial Court to furnish certified copies of documents pertaining to a case involving the prosecution of a State Legislative Member for disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 109 of the IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran observed, “The discretion to file appeal against acquittal mostly depends upon whether the said politician is part of the real dispensation or not. If the Investigating Agency, in his wisdom, decides not to prefer the appeal against acquitted person, like the petitioner, 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, the petitioner as a voter, have a say, 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.”
Advocate K. Jeyamohan represented the petitioner, while G.A. K.M.D. Muhilan appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner’s application had initially been rejected on the grounds that the affidavit did not satisfactorily justify the need for the documents. The petitioner argued that the case, which ended in acquittal, warranted an appeal. Despite the prosecution agency’s decision not to pursue an appeal, the petitioner, as an interested voter from the Thootukudi Assembly Constituency, claimed the right to access the documents to examine the judgment of the trial court
The Court had to determine whether the third party can be furnished with certain copies of the documents in the custody of the court.
The Court referred to the provisions of Rules 210, 211, and 212 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 (Rules). These rules outline the conditions under which third parties can request certified copies of court documents, explaining the necessity of a supporting affidavit that clearly stated the purpose for which the copies were required.
“While the reason being stated in the affidavit, the court below has recorded that it is not satisfied with the reason assigned. The court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the politician prosecuted by specialised agencies got the advantage of acquittal. The discretion to file appeal against acquittal mostly depends upon whether the said politician is part of the real dispensation or not,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that the “petitioner is directed to file a fresh third party petition with an affidavit. On such application, the court below is directed to furnish the copies which the petitioner is entitled to as per Rule 210 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: S. Shanmugasundaram v. The State
