V.G. Arun ORDER
V.G. Arun, J.
1. Petitioner is the 3rd accused in O.R. No. 7 of 2020, registered by the respondent, alleging commission of the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act (for short, 'the Act'). She is the 2nd accused in O.R. No. 2 of 2020, registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) also and was arrested by the NIA and remanded to judicial custody at Bengaluru. After remand, the petitioner was given to the custody of NIA for the purpose of interrogation. While so, the respondent, after obtaining permission from the Special Court for N I A Cases, formally arrested the petitioner and recorded her statement under Section 108 of the Act. Thereafter, at the request of the respondent, petitioner's custody was given to the Customs for five days. According to the petitioner, during that five day period she was coerced into giving another statement under Section 108 of the Act, copy of which was not given to her, but is being utilised by other investigating agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the National Investigation Agency while interrogating her. Hence, it became imperative for the petitioner to obtain a copy of those statements and an application under Rule 222 of the Criminal Rules of Practice (for short, 'the Rules') was submitted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (E.O.), for obtaining copies of the Section 108 statements of the petitioner and the other accused along with copies of the occurrence report, seizure mahazar etc. By Annexure A1 order, the learned Magistrate directed to issue copies of documents, other than the Section 108 statements. Copies of the Section 108 statements was not issued for the reason that the statements were produced in sealed cover as directed by the Court and the Special Prosecutor had requested to keep them confidential. The interdiction in Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. was also cited as a reason to deny the copies.
2. Heard Smt. P. Radhika Rajasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs Department.
3. Referring to Rule 222 of the Rules, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that copies of documents produced in court or in the custody of the court are bound to be issued, on an application being filed by a party to the proceedings. Assailing the finding based on Section 172(3) Cr.P.C., it is contended that a statement under Section 108 of the Act is distinct and different from a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and hence the interdiction in 172(3) of the Code is not applicable. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision in Kishin S. Loungani v. Union of India and Others [MANU/KE/2278/2016 : 2017 (1) KHC 355] to buttress the contention.
4. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that even in respect of an accused, who had given a statement under Section 108 of the Act, the interdiction under Section