IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of framing of charge, material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sections 227, 228, 239 and 240-Stage of framing charge-Trial Court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused-Whether Court can consider material filed by accused? No-Expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227 of Code-Material as produced by prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by accused-Right of accused to seek discharge by filing unimpeachable and unassailable material of sterling quality and invocation of Article 21 of Constitution of India-Reliance on Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution is misplaced-At the stage of framing of charge defence of accused could not be put forth-Hearing the submission of accused has to be confined to material produced by police-Even right of accused and his entitlement to seek order u/s 91 of Code would ordinarily not come till stage of defence.
       Held : What is to the meaning of the expression the record of the case as used in Section 227 of the Code. Though the word case is not defined in the Code but Section 209 throws light on the interpretation to be placed on the said word. Section 209 which deals with the commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it, inter alia, provides that when it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall commit the case to the Court of Session and send to that court the record of the case and the document and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence and notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session. It is evident that the record of the case and documents submitted therewith as postulated in Section 227 relate to the case and the documents referred in Section 209. That is the plain meaning of Section 227 read with Section 209 of the Code. No provision in the Code grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. (Para 8)
       All the decisions, when they hold that there can only be limited evaluation of materials and documents on record and sifting of evidence to prima facie find out whether sufficient ground exists or not for the purpose of proceeding further with the trial, have so held with reference to materials and documents produced by the prosecution and not the accused. The decisions proceed on the basis of settled legal position that the material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused. The latter aspect relating to the accused though has not been specifically stated, yet it is implicit in the decisions. It seems to have not been specifically so stated as it was taken to be well settled proposition. This aspect, however, has been adverted to in State Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and Another v. P. Suryaprakasam [1999 SCC (Crl.) 373] where considering the scope of Sections 239 and 240 of the Code it was held that at the time of framing of charge, what the trial court is required to, and can consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 of the Code and the documents sent with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that (emphasis supplied). The judgment of the High Court quashing the proceedings by looking into the documents filed by the accused in support of his claim that no case was made out against him even before the trial had commenced was reversed by this Court. It may be noticed here that learned counsel for the parties addressed the arguments on the basis that the principles applicable would be same- whether the case be under Sections 227 and 228 or under Sections 239 and 240 of the Code. (Para 16)
       We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The reliance on Articles 14 and 21 is misplaced. The scheme of the Code and object with which Section 227 was incorporated and Sections 207 and 207(A) omitted have already been noticed. Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. By way of illustration, it may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may have to be examined at the stage of framing of charge if the contention of the accused is accepted despite the well settled proposition that it is for the accused to lead evidence at the trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of the charge, in case we accept the contention put forth on behalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well settled for over one hundred years now. It is in this light that the provision about, hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be understood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression hearing the submissions of the accused cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police. (Para 18)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 91-Production of documents-Right of accused to get document produced at the stage of framing of charge-Expression "necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code" would have to be seen with reference to the stage when prayer is made-As far accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order u/s 91 of the Code would not come till the stage of defence-Accused cannot at the stage of framing of charge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence.
       Held : Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code . The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the Court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof. (Para 25)

Judgement Key Points

No, a death certificate of the accused cannot be produced at the stage of discharge.

At the discharge stage (under Sections 227 or 239 CrPC), the court considers only the "record of the case" and documents submitted by the prosecution (e.g., police report under Section 173 CrPC), along with hearing submissions of the accused and prosecution. (!) (!) [1000093430005][1000093430007] The accused has no right to produce any material or documents, as no provision in the CrPC grants such a right before trial; this is limited to the prosecution's materials to determine if there are sufficient grounds to proceed. [1000093430007][1000093430015][1000093430017][1000093430022]

Even invoking Section 91 CrPC for production of documents is not available to the accused at this stage, as necessity/desirability is assessed based on the prosecution's case, not defense materials. Defense evidence arises only during trial. (!) [1000093430023][1000093430024]

Permitting such production would allow a "mini trial," which defeats the CrPC's scheme for expeditious proceedings. [1000093430017][1000093430026] Submissions by the accused are confined to the prosecution's record. [1000093430017]

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused, is the point for determination in these matters.

2. In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Another [(1996) 9 SCC 766], a two judge Bench judgment, it was observed that if the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material should be looked into by the court at that stage. It was held that the object of providing an opportunity to the accused of making submissions as envisaged in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code ) is to enable the court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. It was further observed that there is nothing in the Code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments and, therefore, the trial court would be within its power to consider even material which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Code.

3. When the arguments in the present case were heard by a two-judge Bench, considering various decisions including three-judge Bench decisions in Superindent and Remembrancer of legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others [(1979) 4 SCC 274] and State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39] it was observed that at the time of framing a charge the trial court can consider only the material placed before it by the investigating agency, there being no requirement in law for the court to grant at that stage either an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence in defence or consider such evidence the defence may produce at that stage. But having regard to the views expressed in Satish Mehra s case (supra) it was directed that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. The order referring the matter to larger Bench is reported in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2003) 2 SCC 711]. Accordingly, these matters have been placed before us to determine the question above-noticed.

4. The views expressed in Satish Mehra s case (supra) have been strongly supported by learned counsel for the accused on the ground of justice, equity and fairness and also on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India contending that reversal of that view would lead to unnecessary harassment to the accused by having to face the trial for years, waste of valuable time of the court, heavy cost, despite the fact that even at the early stage of framing of charge or taking cognizance the accused is in a position to produce unimpeachable material of sterling quality to clinchingly show that there is no prospect of conviction at the conclusion of the trial. Satish Mehra s case was further supported on interpretation of Sections 227 and 239 of the Code.

5. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the State that the observations made in Satish Mehra s case run counter to the views expressed by this court in large number of decisions, it amounts to upsetting well settled legal propositions and making nugatory amendments made in Code of Criminal Procedure from time to time and would result in conducting a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge or taking cognizance. Such a course would not only be contrary to the object and the scheme of the Code but would also result in total wastage of the court time because of conducting of two trials, one at the stage of framing charge and the other after the charge is framed. It was contended that on true construction of Section 227 of the Code only the material sent by prosecution along with the record of the case and the documents sen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1483

IMPORTANT POINTAt the stage of framing of charge, material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused.

Cases Referred (12)

IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of framing of charge, material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused.