Nothing Confidential About Property Register Kept In Public Office In Modern Era Of Right To Information & Transparency: Kerala High Court

The petitioner has approached the High Court challenging the dismissal of his application for obtaining a certified copy of a property register in relation to a property produced in a criminal trial in the Court. His application was dismissed stating that it is a register kept in the office of the court and is a confidential non-judicial record as per Rule 225.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas opined that the property register is a judicial record, not a non-judicial one since it is important in administering justice, especially in criminal trials. The court 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'. 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. 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.”

The petitioner was arrayed as an accused for alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 447 (punishment for criminal trespass), 294(b)(obscene acts and songs), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The petitioner's application seeking property register was dismissed by the Magistrate when the case was posted for trial.

Rule 225 reads thus: “Copies of non-judicial and confidential papers- Copies of correspondence or of proceedings which are confidential or are not strictly judicial shall not be granted except under the orders of the Court.”

Analyzing Rule 225, the Court stated that there is a restriction regarding the issuance of certified copies of correspondences or proceedings that are confidential and are not strictly judicial. It further stated that certified copies of any documents could be given pursuant to the orders of the Court.

The Court stated that the Trial Court should not have dismissed his application since the property register was not correspondences or proceedings which are confidential or not strictly judicial. “The property register cannot fall into such a category and the trial court went wrong in refusing to permit grant of a certified copy”, stated the Court.

The High Court stated that the Trial Court should not have denied a certified copy of the property register to the petitioner if he felt that it could help his defence in a criminal trial. The Court thus stated that it is legally improper to deny the certified copy of a document that is retained in a public office.

As such, the Court set aside the order of the Magistrate refusing the certified copy of the property register. The Court thus directed that a certified copy of the property register be issued to the petitioner without delay.

Counsel for 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, Dainy Davis

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sreeja V

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 393

Case Title: P.B.Sourbhan v State of Kerala

Case Number: OP(CRL.) NO. 434 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Judgment