Third-party access to criminal court records upheld where the documents are public and no confidentiality interest is shown.

A third party may obtain certified copies of criminal court records from the trial court where the records are public documents and no overriding confidentiality or State interest is shown. Section 363(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was treated as creating a substantive entitlement to copies for persons not affected by the judgment or order, and that entitlement was not lost merely because the High Court had not framed rules. Order XII Rule 3 of the Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1965 was held inapplicable because the documents had not reached the High Court. The refusal to furnish copies was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a third party is entitled to obtain certified copies of the records in a criminal case pending before the trial court, and whether the absence of a specific rule framed by the High Court under Section 363(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defeats that entitlement.

Analysis: Section 363(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enables the High Court to frame rules for granting copies of judgments or orders to persons not affected by them. The provision was treated as conferring a substantive entitlement on third parties, and the absence of a corresponding rule was held not to extinguish that right. The records sought were regarded as public documents, not classified material, and no prejudice to State interest was shown. Order XII Rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 was held inapplicable because the documents were still before the trial court and had not reached the High Court. The reasoning was reinforced by the width of the criminal copy provisions and the transparency orientation reflected in the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Conclusion: A third party can seek certified copies of the material records from the trial court, and the petitioner's request could not be rejected merely because the High Court had not framed rules under Section 363(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to furnish certified copies was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to the copies sought for use in challenging the discharge order.

Ratio Decidendi: A benevolent statutory right conferred on third parties to obtain copies of criminal court records cannot be defeated by the High Court's failure to frame procedural rules where the records are public documents and no overriding confidentiality or State interest is shown.

---