B.K. Roy and Pramod Kumar Jain, JJ. - (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash the first information report dated 20.12.1997 giving rise to registration of case crime No. 389 of 1997, P.S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli as contained in Annexure -3. Annexure -3 is a plain copy. Nowhere in the writ petition it has been stated that it is true copy of the certified copy of the First Information Report in question. It has also not been stated as to how the petitioner has obtained it. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition states that a true copy of the First Information Report is being filed as Annexure -3 which in the affidavit has been stated by the deponent -petitioner to be true to his personal knowledge. 1.1 The petitioner claims himself to be the Joint Secretary of the Samajvadi Party of District Chandauli. 1.2 The petitioner has come up with a claim that one Udai Nath Singh alias Chulbul is Vice President of District Panchayat, Varanasi, who is contesting the M.L.C. elections from Varanasi constituency on Bhartiya Janta Party Ticket, Hira Lal alias Chakkan of his Samajvadi Party is contesting Udai Nath Singh; every foul means has been adopted by Udai Nath Singh with the help of the Executive and he has got falsely implicated several workers of the Samajvadi Party including the petitioner, Udai Nath Singh and his brother Brijesh Singh have a long criminal history, yet the machinery of the State is helping them in their all wrong acts; Udai Nath Singh aforementioned manipulated and managed Respondent No. 3 the Station Officer, P.S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli to lodge the impugned first Information Report, the last portion of which reads thus: - - 1.3 In the counter affidavit, which has been sworn by Sri Raghunath Gautam, who is presently posted as Station Officer, P.S. Ali Nagar, District Chandauli and is the investigating officer of the case in question has denied the correctness of the statement made by the petitioner. He has also brought on the record a hand written copy of the first information report, the last part of which reads thus: - - 1.4 The counter affidavit appends a X -rox copy of another first information report, the particulars of which have been made legible by a fresh writing, as Annexure -CA -2. It is not understandable as to why Annexure -CA -1, which is the impugned information report, is not a X -rox copy of the first information report. In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2714 of 1997 Ram Saran Singh v. S.S.P. Bareilly and others we had passed the following order on 17.12.97: - - The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the first information report giving rise to registration of crime case No. 283 of 1997 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 I.P.C. and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Fatehganj East, District Bareilly as contained in Annexure -2. Annexure -1 is not a certified copy of the aforementioned First Information Report. It is merely a typed copy of an alleged X -rox copy of the first information report. The alleged First Information Report itself refers to appending an enquiry report alongwith the First Information Report which the petitioner has not appended. Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that since his client could not get that report it has not been appended. Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner comes up with a plea that the authorities are not supplying certified copy of the first information report and hence the petitioners are left with no option but to obtain it by any means. If one has to accept the correctness of the statement of Mr. Misra, then it will mean perpetuating an apparent illegality and avoidance of payment of court fee by those persons who are desirous of obtaining a certified copy of the public document. First information report is a public document and any person is entitled to have its certified copy either from the police authorities and/or from any court where it is lying if a person files an application and prepared to pay the proper court fee. In such an event no authority can refuse supplying the certified copy of the first information report. 3. We come to the merits of this case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a honest person and he has been falsely implicated in the backdrop that he has refused to entertain the co -operative authorities. This is a question of fact and we cannot adjudicate in exercise of our discretionary powers more so when none of the co -operative authorities have been impleaded in their personal capacity nor has any date, time of the alleged demand has been mentioned in the writ petition. 4. For the aforementioned reasons this writ petition is dismissed. 5. Before parting we express that we have found in many writ petitions that the petitioners are coming up appending typed copy or X -rox copy of the first information report. Obviously that is being obtained by paying illegal gratification to the custodian of the record which is not permissible. In this clandestine process the State is losing substantial revenue every day. 6. The court may take cognizance of only such documents which are supplied as per the law and duly authenticated. We deprecate and condemn the practice of obtaining illegally X -rox copy or typed copy of the F.I.R. Unless a petitioner comes up with a copy of the first information report duly authenticated and certified with which alone is attached statutory presumption under the Indian Evidence Act, the Court may refuse to take cognizance of such copies. 7. At this stage Sri Jagdish Tiwari, learned A.G.A. informs us that such copies of the first information reports are also being obtained from the office of the C.J.M. or the Judicial Magistrates. 8. We, thus, direct the office of this Court to send forthwith a copy of this order (i) to the Director General of Police, and (ii) all the District Judges of this State to ensure stoppage of supply of such X -rox copy of the first information reports from the Police Stations of this State or from the office of the C.J.M's/Judicial Magistrates respectively.
(2.) IN Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14 of 1998 we passed yet another order on 8.1.1998 which reads thus: - - We notice again annexing of a X -rox copy of the first information report as Annexure -6 to this writ petition. Admittedly this document is not a certified copy. When we desired to know from Sri U.N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition, as to how the petitioner has obtained the X -rox copy, the frankly told us that firstly the petitioner repeatedly tried to obtain a certified copy of the first information report the supply of which however, was declined despite her willingness to pay official costs and thus she somehow obtained the X -rox copy of the first information report to have reliefs from this court. Vide an order dated 17.12.97 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2714 of 1997 we had already condemned the practice of supplying the X -rox copy of the first information report to one or the other party highlighting that this must have caused loss to the tune of lakhs of rupees, if not crores, as revenue to the State and we had commanded the D.G.P. of this State as well as District Courts of this State to ensure supply of certified copy of the first information report after obtaining appropriate court fee. We also direct the office of this Court to serve a copy of this order on Sri Jagdish Tiwari, learned A.G.A. by tomorrow for despatch to the Chief Secretary of State to ensure prevention of considerable loss of revenue to the State and report back of the steps taken by him. Put up on 29.1.1998 as requested by Sri Tiwari to enable him to file counter to the Writ Petition and information of the steps taken by the Chief Secretary of the State. Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner who, however, is directed to co -operate with the investigation in relation to crime case No. 809 of 1997 under Sections 409, 419, 420, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Basti. 2.1 Smt. Seema Shukla, an Advocate of this Court came up with a plea for initiation of proceedings in contempt when she was refused certified copy of a first information report, which she went to obtain, which has given rise to Criminal Contempt Case No. 8 of 1998, after we passed following order on 6.2.1998: Smt. Seema Shukla, an Advocate of this Court has filed this application after serving its copy on Sri Anoop Ghosh, learned A.G.A. stating inter alia as follows: - - She is a practising Advocate of this Court, she went to Police Station Soraon District Allahabad, for getting certified copy of first information report on due payment alleged to have been registered against Kamlesh Kumar Chaturvedi and Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi resident of Jondhwal Teliarganj, Allahabad, Anirudh Singh, Station Officer, refused to give the certified copy despite information to him by her about the order and direction of the Court and reminded of his duty, who also told her that he functions according to the Cr. P.C. and Police Regulation Act and not bound to follow any direction of any Court and asked her to go out of the Police Station and to request the same Judges for copy of first information report, who have passed such orders; that the action of the Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad comes under the purview of the contempt of the Court and accordingly proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India be initiated against him. The learned counsel with tears in her eyes supported the statements made in this application before us. It is a settled law rules of procedures are handmaid of justice. Prima facie we have no reason to doubt the correctness of the averments made in her application and reiterated before us in open Court, we, accordingly, initiate proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against Anirudh Singh, Station Officer, Soraon, District Allahabad and ask him to appear at 10 A.M. on Monday 9th February, 1998 before the appropriate Contempt Bench alongwith his show cause, if any, as to why he should not be appropriately punished for having undermined the authority of the Court. Let a copy of this order be sent and served on him immediately through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and/or S.S.P., Allahabad. This communication will deemed to be sufficient knowledge to the S.S.P. Allahabad who will also apprise the Court on Monday as to what disciplinary proceedings he has taken or he intends to take against such a delinquent contemner. We also direct the informant Smt. Seema Shukla to file an affidavit by tomorrow. This proceeding is to be registered as a separate criminal contempt against the aforesaid contemner. Sri Jagdish Tiwari, learned A.G.A., will assist the Court. We also direct the S.S.P., Allahabad to see that certified copy of the F.I.R. is handed over to the informant Smt. Shukla provided she deposits necessary costs/fees for supply of such certified copy, which is required to be deposited before him now. We also direct the office to serve a copy of this order on Sri Jagdish Tiwari, learned A.G.A. today itself for a follow up action. This proceeding in contempt is pending and thus we do not desire to note anything beyond notes as above. 2.2. One turns back to the Biblical story - -And God created Adam and Eve and forbade them from eating the apple. Despite this, they ate and tasted the forbidden apple. Thus, started the quest for knowledge. Right to know is no longer a myth. It stands recognised as a fundamental right covered under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India by plethora of decisions of the Apex Court (see (i) State of U.P. v. Raj Narain : (1975) 4 SCC 428 Paragraph 72, (ii) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India : AIR 1982 SC 149 Paragraphs 73 and 74, (iii) Reliance Petro Chemical Limited v. Properties of Indian Express : AIR 1989 SC 190, (iv) State of Orissa v. Shridhar Kumar Mallick : AIR 1985 SC 1411, (v) Indian Express Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 875 and (vi) Dinesh Trivedi v. Union : (1997) 4 SCC 306 Paragraphs 16, 17 and 19). 3.1. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: - - 154. Information in cognizable cases, - - (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub -section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub -section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. This section provides giving of a copy of the information free of cost to the informant. Section 74 of the Evidence Act reads thus: - - 74. Public documents - -The following documents are public documents: - - (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts, - - (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive (of any part of India or of the Commonwealth) or of a foreign country; (2) Public records kept in any state of private documents. Section 76 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: - - 76. Certified copies of public documents. - -Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fee therefor; together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation: - -Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorised to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section. Section 207 Cr.P.C., which has bearing, reads thus: - - 207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. - -In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused free of cost copy of each of the following: - - (i) the police report; (ii) the first information report recorded under Section 154; (iii) the statements recorded under sub -section (3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses excluding therefrom any part in regard to which request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub -section (6) of Section 173; (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 164; (v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub -section (5) of Section 173; Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished, to the accused; Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.
(3.) IN Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaj Jung : (1991) 3 SCC 67, the Supreme Court observed as follows: - - ...The legislature often fails to keep pace with the changing needs and values nor is it realistic to expect that it will have provided for all contingencies and eventualities. It is, therefore, not only necessary but obligatory on the courts to step in to fill the lacuna. When courts perform this function undoubtedly they legislate judicially. But that is a kind of legislation which stands implicitly delegated to them to further the subject of the legislation and to promote the goals of the society. Or to put it negatively, to prevent the frustration of the legislation or perversion of the goals and values of the society. So long as the courts keep themselves tethered to the ethos of the society and do not travel off its course, so long as they attempt to furnish the fill necessities of the time and do not refurbish them, their role in this respect has to be welcomed.;