Third-party certified copies are procedural, not automatic; inspection and fresh application may be required before copies of unmarked records.

The rule governing third-party copy applications is procedural and does not create an automatic substantive right to certified copies; the judicial officer must consider each request on its merits and may refuse copies for privacy, bona fides, or other relevant reasons. The rule restricting certified copies of unmarked documents is limited, not a blanket prohibition. Where copies are sought, the proper course is inspection of the record followed by written extracts and then, if needed, a fresh, properly particularised application. A blanket refusal of certified copies of unmarked originals was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the rule governing third-party copy applications confers a substantive right to obtain certified copies as of course; (ii) whether certified copies of unmarked documents can be refused without first permitting inspection and extraction of written notes under the applicable criminal rules of practice.

Issue (i): whether the rule governing third-party copy applications confers a substantive right to obtain certified copies as of course.

Analysis: The rule dealing with third-party copy applications was construed as laying down only the procedure for seeking copies. The requirement of an affidavit stating the purpose for which the copy is needed does not by itself create an automatic entitlement to the copy. The judicial officer must pass a reasoned order on each application, and may refuse copies where privacy concerns, bona fides, or other relevant considerations so warrant. The rule therefore regulates the manner of seeking copies and does not eliminate judicial discretion.

Conclusion: The rule does not confer an absolute substantive right on a third party to obtain certified copies.

Issue (ii): whether certified copies of unmarked documents can be refused without first permitting inspection and extraction of written notes under the applicable criminal rules of practice.

Analysis: The rule barring certified copies of photocopies of unmarked documents was treated as a limited restriction and not as a general prohibition against certified copies of originals merely because they remain unmarked. The Court held that the proper course for the applicant was first to seek inspection of the record and then take written extracts as permitted by the rules. After inspection, a fresh and properly particularised third-party copy application could be filed for the documents actually required. On that basis, the blanket refusal of certified copies of unmarked documents was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refusal of certified copies of unmarked documents was set aside, and the applicant was directed to proceed by inspection and fresh application.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded in part by removing the blanket denial of certified copies of unmarked documents, while preserving the requirement that the applicant follow the inspection-based procedure before seeking copies.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule requiring an affidavit for third-party copies is procedural and does not create an automatic entitlement to copies; the court retains discretion, and a blanket refusal of unmarked originals cannot stand where the rules permit inspection and written extracts.

---