Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The petitioner had approached the High Court for seeking a judgement copy of his conviction after the trial court denied giving him the same. The Trial Court had convicted Rajesh Ponnada for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and granted simple imprisonment extending for a term up to six months along with a non-bailable warrant against him.
The Supreme Court had to hear this matter because the accused could not get the copy of the Judgement at free of cost. Although he made an application seeking a certified copy of the judgement, the court rejected his application when an objection was raised that he absconded at the judgement, and the copies of the documents would be given after the accused appears.
Since the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh also dismissed his plea, he reached the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice R Subhash Reddy said that section 353(6) and section 363(1) have to be read harmoniously. Section 353(6) mandates an accused to be present at the court on the date of judgement unless there exists a justifiable reason, and Section 363(1) entitles an accused to avail a free copy of the judgement.
However, his entitlement to the certified copy of the judgement is not in dispute in the instant case. Rule 212 of the Criminal Rules of Practice of the state, provides that the concerned parties must be furnished with the copies of any portion of the record in a criminal case after such parties pay the authorized fee and for the stamp.
86540
103860
630
114
59824