It is a rule of law that every member of the public is presumed to know the law, it follows that the public must have a right of access to the judgments of the Courts which express that law.

Kerala High Court

V.J. Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 1970

Equivalent citations: 1970 CriLJ 1499

Author: E Moidu

Bench: E Moidu

ORDER E.K. Moidu, J.

1. This Criminal Petition by one V. J. Thomas is directed against the order dated 23-8-1969 by the Sub-Magistrate, Chengannur, refusing to issue certified copies of (1) Police Refer Charge-sheet in Crime No. 94/68 of the Chengannur police station, and (2) the order passed thereon by the Sub-Magistrate on the basis of his copy application dated 7-8-69.

..............................................

11. In Ladli Prasad v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 364 on construing Section 548, Criminal Procedure Code., it is hold:

I see no reason to construe the words "affected by a judgment or order" narrowly. It certainly cannot be said that they refer to a person who is a party to the judgment or order, for the rights of the accused to a copy of the judgment are dealt with elsewhere in the Code. The public as a whole cannot fail to be affected by every judgment of a Criminal Court. For example, as in this case, the judgment in a Criminal case dealing with sedition affects the general public as indeed any judgment dealing With any crime is bound to affect the general public. A knowledge of the law, it is true, in many cases is made available to the public by statute, but the construction of statutes by the Courts, as expressed in their judgments, is of even greater importance. It is a rule of law that every member of the public is presumed to know the law, it follows that the public must have a right of access to the judgments of the Courts which express that law.

12. Though it relates to the copy of a judgment being given to a stranger, who is not a party to the judgment, the same argument holds good in respect of an order if it comes within the scope of Section 548 Cr. P. C.

13. It is clear that the police refer charge-sheet and the order passed thereon are held by the Sub-Magistrate as a public document and that the revision petitioner is entitled to get a copy of those documents as he was bound to have the right to inspect the same within the meaning of Section 76 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, I find that the petitioner is entitled to get copies of these documents.

14. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the Sub-Magistrate on 23-8-1969 is set aside. The Sub-Magistrate will give copies of the documents applied for by the petitioner.