1

INTHECOURTOFSHRISURINDERS.RATHI:ASJ:02: CENTRAL:ROOMNO.32:TISHAZARICOURTS:DELHI IDNO:02401R0213262012 CRNO:73/12 FIRNO:4/12 PSCENTRAL/SPL.CELL U/s307/323/427/120BIPC &U/s16/18UAPA &U/s3ofExplosiveSub.Act SyedMohd.AhmedKazmi vs. State INTHEMATTEROF SyedMohd.AhmedKazmi S/oLateSh.AliNajafKazmi R/oF17&18B.K.Dutt Colony,Jorbagh, NewDelhi Vs. State ........Respondent ....Revisionist/Accused

Revisionagainsttheimpugnedorderdated01.05.2012

DATEOFINSTITUTION DATEOFFINALHEARING DATEOFFINALORDER ORDERONREVISION

: : :

10.5.2012 25.5.2012 25.5.2012

1. This revision has been preferred by revisionist / accused against order of Ld.

Page 1 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

Magistratedated1.05.2012wherebyvidelaterpartoftheorder,afterinitiallyallowing therevisionisttoobtaincertifiedcopyofcompletesetofCourtFileincludingallthe orders, request of the revisionist to obtain certified copy of his J/c / P/c remand applicationsandorderswasdeclined. 2. Ihave heard Ld. Counsel foraccused /revisionist Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Sh. MehmoobPracha,AdvocateandSh.SheikhFarazIqbal,AdvocateandLd.Addl. PPSh.RajivMohan.Ihavealsocarefullyperusedtheentirerevisionfileaswellas recordformtheCourtofLd.CMM. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that revisionist herein is a Journalistbyprofession.Hewasarrestedon6.3.2012inconnectionwithanincident ofbombblastwhichtookplaceon13.2.2012inaToyotaInnovabelongingto Israelis Embassy.ThecarwascarryinganIsraeliwomanwhowaswifeofanIsraeliDiplomat. Theexplosionissaidtohavetakenplaceataround3.15pmwiththehelpofamagnetic explosivedevisewhenthecarwasatAurganjebRoadSafdarjungRoadCrossing.In thatincidentapartfromtheIsraeliWomannamelyTalYehoShua,herdriverandtwo morepersonssustainedinjuries.AfterthisincidentanFIRNo.04/2012U/s307/120B IPCU/s3ofExplosiveSubstancesActwasregisteredbyPSSpl.Cell.Subsequently offences U/s 323/427 IPC were added apart from Section 16/18 Unlawful Activities PreventionAct. 4. Therevisionistwasarrestedundertheallegationthatheconspiredandfacilitatedinthe commission of above crime. After the arrest of the revisionist, his 20 days police

Page 2 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

custodyremandwassoughton7.3.2012.ThesamewasallowedbytheCourtofLd. CMM.However,hewasproducedbackandsenttoJudicialCustodyafter17daysonly i.e.on24.3.2012.OnthatdayLd.CMMsenthimtoJ/cfor14days.Thereafterthe revisionistwasremandedtoJ/cinbatchesof14dayson7.4.12thenon21.4.12then on5.5.12thenon19.5.2012till2.6.2012. 5. Duringthisperiodon23.4.2012,therevisionistaccusedappliedforobtainingcertified copyof completesetofcourtfileincludingalltheorders. Thisapplicationwas allowedbyLd.CMMvidehisorderandendorsementoftheevendate.Thisapplication wasregisteredwith CopyingAgency,TisHazariCourtsunderapplication no.38189 andtherequesteddocuments,85innumber,weresuppliedtoSh.Kazmion27.4.2012. When Ld. Counsel for revisionist/ accused checked the documents, he found that neitherofthe7J/c/P/cremandpapersandordershavebeensuppliedtohimeven thoughLd.CMMhadallowedhimthecompletesetofCourtfile. 6. Thisledtofilingofanapplicationdated30.4.2012withOfficeofLd.CMMwherebya requestwasmadethattheaboveremnantdocumentsmayalsobesupplied.Thistime Ld. CMMissuednoticeofthisapplicationtotheIO. UponthisIOAddl.DCPSh. SanjeevKumarYadavsubmittedhisreplydated1.5.2012wherebyitwasreportedby theIOthataccusedSyedMohd.AhmedKazmiisapressreporter.Hence,mediaand pressreporteraretakingkeeninteresttocovereverypoint/storyrelatedtothiscase. Itisfurthersubmittedthatpublicationofthedocumentscontainingnameandaddressof thewitnessescanaffectthetestimonyofwitnessesandinvestigationofthecase.

Page 3 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

7. Afteraffordingopportunityofbeingheard,Ld,Magistratepassedtheimpugnedorder dated1.5.2012observingtherein:
4.There is another application , filed on behalf of accused, seeking certified copiesofalltherecordspertainingtopoliceandjudicialcustodyremandofthe accusedaswellasapplications/reportssubmittedbytheInvestigatingAgency. Itisadmittedpositionthatwhateverrecordisavailablebeforethiscourtinterms ofapplications/reportsfiledbySpecialCellandtheorderspassedbythiscourt thecertifiedcopiesthereofhavealreadybeensuppliedtotheapplicant. Now, thelearnedcounselfortheapplicanthasconfinedhisprayerforsupplyingthe copies of applications of police custody remand / judicial custody remand / orders passed thereupon which are there on the investigation file........................... and I am of the considered opinion that the said applicationandordercannotbesuppliedtotheaccused..........

8. Aggrievedbythisorder,revisionist/accusedpreferredtherevisioninhand. 9. TheabovebundleoffactsmakeitamplyclearthattheimpugnedorderofLd. CMM dated 1.5.2012 denying the copies rather explicitly overrules his own order dated 23.4.2012 whereby he allowed the revisionist toobtain complete setofcourt file includingalltheorders. Theonlyreasonastowhythesaid7remandapplications andorderscouldnotbesuppliedtotherevisionistaccusedissimplybecausethatthe concernedAhlmad,Asst.AhlmadandtheReaderoftheCourtofLd.CMMwerenot awareoftheexactwhereaboutsofthose7documents.Hadthese7documentsbeen keptinthesamebunchofpapersasotherapplicationsandorderspertainingtothis case were, revisionist would have obtained certified copy of these 7 documents on 27.4.2012itself. 10.Thefactthatthe7documentswerenotavailablewiththeotherrelateddocumentsis

Page 4 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

evidentfromtheproceedingsofthisCourtdated24.5.2012whenAhlmadoftheCourt ofLd.CMMmadeacategoricalstatementinthisCourtthathehadsenttothisCourt allthepapers pertainingtothiscase(page03to177)and nootherdocumentor remand paper is available with him . Itisonly aftertheCourtStaffofLd. CMM realised theseriousnessofthesituation,theyseemtohaveconductedasustained searchandafterabout2hours,thesaidMissing remandpaperswereproduced beforethisCourt.AssuchitisclearthatbutforthefollyonthepartofStaffoftheCourt ofLd.CMMofnotkeepingalltheoriginalspaperssecurelyatoneplace,revisionist wouldhavebeensuppliedthecertifiedcopyofthe7remandpapersunderordersofLd. CMM dated 23.4.2012. This failure on the part of the Court Staff of Ld. CMM necessitatedandcompelledtheRevisionisttomovethe aforesaidapplicationdated 30.4.2012anditledtoconsequentialpassingofimpugnedorderofnegatingtherequest byLd.CMMon1.5.2012andthisaloneledtofilingoftherevisioninhand. 11.IntheimpugnedorderLd.CMMhasterriblymistakenhimselfwhenheobservedthat therevisionistisseekingcopyofdocumentswhicharethereontheinvestigationfile. Firstly neither any such prayer was made by the revisionist in his application dated 30.4.2012,Secondly,theoriginalremandapplicationsandorderspassedthereonare never part of investigation file maintained by the IO. As per The Punjab Police Rules'1934 applicabletoDelhi, PPRNo.25.56 theoriginalremandapplicationsand orderscannotberetainedortakenbackbythePoliceunderanycircumstancesand thattheoriginalissupposedtoberetainedbytheMagistrate'sCourtalone.

Page 5 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

12.Asfarasthisrevisionisconcerned,submissionsonthemaintainabilityonthesame were also heard so as to assess whether impugned order dated 1.5.2012 is interlocutoryorderasperSection397(2)Cr.P.C.quawhichnorevisioncanbefiled. ThelawoninterlocutoryordersiswellsettledrightfromS.KappuswamiRaoCase AIR1949FCI,Amarnath'scase,AIR1977SC2185, MadhuLimaye'scase AIR 1978SC47uptoSethuraman'scase,JT2009(4)SC164. 13.Allthesejudgmentslaythataninterlocutoryorderisone whichdoesnotdecidethe rightofapartysubstantiallyandfinallyanditonlyaimedatfurtheringaprocessora trial.However,inthematterinhandtherevisionist,whoisincustodysince6.3.2012, wasdeniedtheRighttoseekcopiesofthoseveryapplicationsandordersunderwhich heisbeingkeptindetention. 14.AsfarasRightoftheaccusedtoseekcertifiedcopyoftheapplicationmovedbefore theCourtunderwhoseordertheRevisionistisbeingdetainedinjailandthejudicial orderofhisdetention /remandisconcerned,reliancehastobeplacedon Punjab, CivilandCriminalCourtsPreparationandSupplyofCopiesofRecordsRules, 1965.TheseRulesareapplicabletoallDistrictCourtsinDelhiinsofarastheyarepart ofDelhiHighCourtRulesandOrdersVolumeIVPartFChapter17atPage1155. TheseRulesdefinethewordRecordasunder: 15.Rule2(c)Recordmeansandincludesanyportionofarecordandanydocument, map,planorotherpaperattachedto,orformingpart,oftherecordofanysuit,appeal ,enquiry,trialorotherproceedingsinanyCivilorCriminalCourt.

Page 6 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

16.Rule3(1)provides:AnypartytoaCivilorCriminalCaseisentitledatanystageofthe suitorcomplainttoobtaincopiesoftherecordofthecase......(emphasissupplied) 17.Rule7laysthatanapplicationseekingcopyoftherecordofHighCourtorofaDistrict and Sessions Court deserves tobe accepted only with the permission oftheCourt. Thissquarelymeansthatasfarasanapplicationseekingcertifiedcopyofrecordlying withaMagisterialCourtisconcerned,nopermissionoftheCourtisrequired. 18.Rule12 providesforscrutinyofapplicationandasperthisRule itisonlytheCopy AgentworkingwithCopyingAgencywhoshallscrutinizethesameastowhetheracopy soughtcanbesuppliedtotheapplicantundertheRules. 19.Rule14providesthatincaseofdoubtthecopyingagencyofficialshallproducesuch applicationbeforeLd. DistrictandSessionsJudgeforremovalofthedoubt. Above schemeofthingsclearlylaysthatneithertherewasanynecessityforrevisionisttoseek permissionoftheCourtofLd.CMMtoobtaincertifiedcopythereof,nor,asperrules, Ld.CMMwasauthorisedtorefusetosupplythecopies. 20.As faras Right of the accused to seek certified copy of his Remand Application is concerned,notonlytheaboveRulesauthorisehimtoreceivethesameatanystage butevenConstitutionallybycombinedvirtueofArticle14,Article19(1)(a),Article21 andArticle22ofourConstitutionanaccusedheldincustodybytheStatedoeshave a right tobe treated without any discrimination procedurally . He has a right tobe treatedanddealtwithbytheStateinatransparentmannerasruledincasetitledK. Ravi Kumar Vs. Bangalore University, AIR 2005, Karnatak 21, whereby while

Page 7 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

explainingthemeaningandinterpretationofwordsusedinArticle19(1)(a)ofour Constitution i.e. all Citizens shall have the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression,itwasruledthat toensurethistheGovernmentalfunctionsandfunctioning of all three of its instrumentalities namely Executive, Legislature and Judiciary shall be transparent and these instrumentalities should be prevented from deceiving the people. 21.Article22oftheConstitutionprovidesforProtectionagainstarrestanddetention ofCitizens.IncasetitledSophiaGulamMohd.BhamVs.StateofMaharashtra, AIR1977SC3051whilereferringtoArticle22ofConstitution itwasruledthat: the person arrested and detained isnotonly supposed to be told about the facts constituting his ground of arrest but he is alsosupposedtobetoldaboutthematerialonwhichthosefacts orconclusionsarebased. 22.IncasetitledFarooqVs.UnionofIndiaAIR1990SC1597,Hon'bleSupremeCourt emphasisedthat all the documents relied by detaining a citizen shall be providedtohim 23.Similarviewwasexpressedin AhmedKuttyVs.UnionofIndia,(1990)2SCC1,it wasalsoruledthat nonsupplyingofsuchdocumentcanleadtovitiatingthedetention itself. 24.Althoughtherevisionisthereinisnotunderpreventivedetentionbuttheanalogywhich canbedrawnisthatduringthe detentionunderinvestigationunder Section43Dof UAPA,theaccuseddoeshavearightofbeingtoldofgroundsofhisfurtherextensionof
Page 8 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

remandapartfromsupplyofcopiesofhisremandApplicationsandOrders.Thisview is in consonance with landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi'scasewhereadutywascastedontheStatethatallitsactsshallbeJust, FairandReasonable. 25.Inmyconsidered view theright ofan accused to seek information and copy ofthe applicationseekinghisdetentioninjailandtheorderpassedbyJudicialAuthorityinthis regard is fundamental to his Constitutional Rights. The form and content of the FundamentalRightsofanycitizen,cannothaveanexhaustiveinterpretation.Moreso whenpersonallibertyofsuchacitizen,assafeguardedbyArticle21ofConstitution, isbreachedbyhisarrestinacriminalcase. 26.IncasetitledKeshavandanaBharatiVs.StateofKerala,19734SCC225ithasbeen observedbyHon'bleSupremeCourtthat: Fundamental rights themselves have no fixed content, most of them are empty vessels into which each generation must pour its contentinthelightofitsexperience.Itisrelevantinthiscontextto remember that in building up a just social order it is sometimes imperative that the fundamental rights should be subordinated to directiveprinciples. 27.In these time the whole World , including our Country, have risen to the Rights of Citizens to Information. It has universally been acknowledged that Citizens have FundamentalRighttoknowwhatGovernmenthasbeendoingintheirname.Thishas beenheldin RVs.SecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartment,(1995)4AllER 400andTinnely&SonsVs.UnitedKingdom,(1998)27EHRR249.Inconsonance withPreambleofourConstitution&TheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,1948,
Page 9 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

10

ourDemocracyachievedafeatbyenactingTheRighttoInformationAct,2005. 28.InIndianExpressNewspapersBombayLtd.Vs.UnionofIndia,AIR1986,SC515, Hon'bleSupremeCourtruledthat: Article19(1)(a)whichspellsFreedomofSpeechandExpression alsocoversfollowingperceptions: Ithelpsanindividualtoattainselffulfilment Itassistsindiscoveryoftruth (1) Itstrengthensthecapacity ofanindividualinparticipatingin decisionmaking (2) It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change. SeveralunenumeratedrightsfallwithintheambitofArticle21 sincepersonallibertyisofwidestamplitude. 29.Alsoin S.P.GuptaVs.UnionofIndia,(1981)SuppSCC 87 ,Hon'bleHighCourt reiteratedthat RighttoKnowisimplicitinRighttoFreeSpeechandExpression. 30.In another land mark judgment State of UP Vs. Raj Narain, (1974) 4 SCC 428, Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthat: FreedomofSpeechandExpression,FundamentalRights of Citizen under Article 19(1) (a) of Constitution, include RightofCitizenstoknoweverypublicact,everythingthat isdoneinapublicway,bytheirpublicfunctionaries. 31.Likewiseinthematterinhandaswell notonlyFundamentalRightsoftheCitizens safeguarded by above landmark judgments are there to aid the Revisionist but in addition theretohis Rights as anaccused under detention also come tohis rescue.

Page 10 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

11

WhenConstitutionallyaCitizenwhoisnotfacinganyhardshipisalsoentitledtoknow astowhattheStateisdoing,congruentlyaCitizenwhosePersonalLibertyhasbeen breached, isdefinitelyentitledtoknowastowhattheInvestigatingAgencyandthe Judiciaryisdoingforkeepinghimindetention. 32.ItisdutyofthisCourtsalonetoensurethatFundamentalRightsofaCitizeninduress like Revisionist Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi , are not violated in the name of technicalities. 33.IthasbeenarguedbyLd.Addl.PPthatbyvirtueofSection44(3)(d)ofUAPAct,the Courtcanorderforstoppingthepublicationofproceedings.Iamnotinconformitywith thispleainsofarasthereisnothingonrecord,asofnow,toinvokethisbenevolent provision which isaimed only atsafeguarding thewitnesses. Itisconceded byLd. Addl.PPthatneitherStatenortheCourtofLd.CMMonitsownmotioneverordered forholdinganyproceedingsinthiscaseincamera.Alsonowitnesshastilldatehas moved any such application . It is also conceded by State that neither name nor addressofanywitness,directlyorindirectlyrelatedwiththiscase,findanymentionin either of the 7 remand applications and orders sought by the revisionist accused. Simplereferencetothreevehicle numberswithapleathatthevehiclenumberscan leadtonameandaddressofthewitnessesisquiteafarfetchedplea.Moreso,when oneoutofthesethreecarnumbersbelongtoaccused,whiletheremainingtwovehicle numbershavealreadybeensharedbytheStatewiththeMediaandthosenumbers alreadystoodpublishedinseveralNationalDailies.

Page 11 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

12

34.FurthermoreasfarasdetailsoftheInnovainwhichtheblast issaidtohavetaken placeisconcerned,theyhavealreadybeensharedwiththeaccusedbyLd.CMMas the accused has been provided the copy of its Insurance and other registration particulars. 35.Also reply to the Revisionist's application filed by the accused , IO has simply expressed apprehension qua sharing of those documents which carries name and addressofwitness.IseenoreasonastowhyLd.CMMoughttohavedisallowedthe requestofsupplyofthose7remandapplication andorders whichadmittedly donot contain name and address of any witness. Moreso, when he had himself earlier allowedthesame. 36.IseenostrengthinthepleaofLd.APPandtheobservationmadebyLd.CMMinthe impugnedorderthataccusedwouldbesuppliedthesedocumentslaterononlyu/s207 Cr.P.C. after the chargesheet is filed. There is no legal prohibition on supply of documentstotheaccusedinJ/c,subjecttosafeguardsprovidedbyrelevantstatue.As discussed supra it is his Fundamental Right to be informed about the grounds and documentationsquahisdetentioninjail.AsconcludedsupraDelhiHighCourtsRules and Orders dulyempowered theaccused/revisionisttoseekcertifiedcopy ofany recordatanystage. 37.Mythisviewissupportedby Hon'bleMadrasHighCourt incasetitled SubinVs. State of Tamilnadu Crl. Original Petition (MD) No. 8221 of 2010 decided on 3.8.2010wherebyitwasruledthat:

Page 12 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

13

OncetheremandorderispassedbyaMagistrateonaRemand Application,suchanapplicationandorderbecomespartofthe Record and that there is no specific embargo in Cr.P.C. disentitlingsuchaccusedtogetcopyofsuchRemandApplication /Order. Moreso,whensuchapplicationdoesnotformpartof Policecasediaries. 38.Assuchinviewoftheabovediscussion,Ihavenohesitationinconcludingthatlater impugnedportionoforderofLd.CMMdated1.5.2012isillegalandfractious.Sameis accordinglysetaside. Inchargecopyingagencyisherebydirectedtosupplycertified copies of all the 7 remand applications and orders upon being so applied by the accused/revisionist. 39.Beforepartingwiththisorder,thisCourtisconstrainedtomakeanobservationthatthe OrderpassedbyLd. CMMgranting20daysPoliceCustodyRemandofRevisionist SayedMohd.AhmedKazmitoSpl.Cellon7.3.2012ishandwrittensopoorlythatitis almosttotallyillegible.Notonlythehandwritingispoorbuteventhecompletewords have not been framed and order has been over written over the printed textof the application. Ifthefrontpageoftheapplicationwasshortofspace,thentheremand ordercouldhavebeenconvenientlypassedonthe reverseside oftheapplication. Practiceofwritingordersontheprintedtextdeservestobedeprecated.Itisexpected ofallMagisterial Courts thattheyshall passordersonRemand orany suchsimilar application moved before them in a neat, clean and legible manner. Under no circumstancesuchordershallbepassedontheprintedtext.Despitesustainedefforts itwasnotpossibleforthisCourt todecipherandreadtheorderofLd. CMMdated 7.3.2012. AssuchLd. CMMisdirectedtoplaceatypedtranscriptofhisthishand

Page 13 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012

14

writtenorderdated7.3.2012alongwiththeRemandApplicationunderdueattestationof itbeingatruetranscription. 40.Revision filebeconsigned toRR. Copy ofthisorderbesenttoLd.Trial Courtfor compliance.

ANNOUNCEDANDDICTATED INOPENCOURTON:25.5.2012. (SURINDERS.RATHI) Addl.SessionsJudge02 Central:Delhi

Page 14 / 14 of Order on Revision Syed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State dt. 25.5.2012