Stop delaying in providing certified copies in the name of unidentified procedures

Obtaining copies of the case records is the statutory right of the parties, either directly or through their advocates, in their case. These records are needed to defend their case or to file their appeal, revision etc. So, to get these records, a Party or his advocate files an Application Known as Copy Application.

I am speaking here is about ONLY about rule 209 of Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 which sets the Procedure for requesting these copies form the concerned court in which the parties case is pending or disposed.

The application shall be presented by the applicant or his advocate in the ‘open court’ with the name of the applicant, his Position in the case or proceeding as the case may be, the name of the advocate and the description of the Proceeding or document of which a copy is required.

Once the copy application is submitted in the ‘open court’ with the above requirements, it can either be allowed by the court or dismissed. Where is the question of returning the same contemplated under the Rules of Practice?

But, sometimes the court (strictly only the BC or MC) asks the applicants to file the extra documents called “call for memo”. A memo is nothing but an “information in writing sent by one person to another in the same business organisation (see: Oxford/Cambridge Dictionary)”.

The copy application (note this is an application/petition and not a memo) is itself an official request made by the applicant in which a C.A number will be allocated. The court does not need an extra memo or notification just to get the copies that are already lying in its office. The only administrative/clerikal duty is to check whether the particulars told in the provision i.e., rule. 209 in the Tamilnadu Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 is correctly filled or not.

Usually, the court provides adjournment under Section 346 of BNSS, but it must be understood that Section 346 of BNSS provides the Power to postpone or adjourn the Proceedings only pertaining to inquiries or trials and not for any administrative work like issuing certified copies.

Timely access to court records is essential for speedy justice; simple administrative requests should never be turned into complex Procedural hurdles.

Reference: A.Leo Charles … Petitioner Vs M.Vijayakumar … Respondent – CRL.OP.No.14184 of 2015 – In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras Dated 11.06.2015 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.N.Prakash;  

-The End-

Written by: Ms Sathiya Jyothi Sabapathy – School of Excellence in law, Chennai – Finished Law, passed the AIBE exam, yet to receive the enrolment number.