At the stage of framing of charges, the accused has no right to produce any material, and the provisions of Section 294 of the Code could not be invoked by the petitioner at this stage.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed inasmuch as the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13. 4. 2006 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, New delhi whereby the petitioner's application [under Section 294 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code")] for admission/denial of certain documents filed along with the application was dismissed.

( 2 ) IT is pertinent to note that this application under Section 294 of the Code was filed at the stage of framing of charges and not in the course of a trial. Furthermore, before the said application under Section 294 of the code was filed, the petitioner had filed two applications dated 26. 9. 2003 and 24. 7. 2004 praying for permission to file certain documents. Those applications had been rejected by the Special Judge by a speaking order dated 20. 2. 2006. It is also an admitted position that the documents mentioned in the application under Section 294 of the Code were the same documents which were the subject matter of the order passed by the Special Judge on 20. 2. 2006.

( 3 ) IN the impugned order, this fact has been noticed and the learned Special Judge observed that the said application under Section 294 of the Code was "clearly a gross abuse of the precious time of the court". The same documents which had been rejected and had not been permitted to be taken on record by virtue of the order dated 20. 2. 2006 were again sought to be introduced into the record in this indirect fashion. Moreover, the application under section 294 of the Code had been filed just two weeks after the earlier applications had been rejected. The exact words used by the learned Special judge, while dismissing the application with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, were as under:"this application is clearly a gross abuse of the precious time of this Court; the same documents which had been rejected and had not been permitted to be taken on record vide order dated 20. 02. 2006 are now again being prayed to be taken on record; the present application had been filed just two weeks after the earlier applications had been rejected with a twist given to the facts; there is already a speaking order of this court rejecting the permission to take those documents on record which admittedly has not been the subject matter of any appeal by moving this present application, there appears to be only one purpose with the accused and that is to delay the progress of the case and with this object in mind abuse the process of the Court. The provisions of Section 294 of the Cr. P. C. clearly contemplate only admission/denial of those documents which have been filed either by the Prosecution of by the accused; which is admittedly not so in the instant case. Application is clearly malafide. Application is dismissed with cost of rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the accused with Delhi Legal Services Authority, patiala House Court, New Delhi. For consideration of charge, to come up on 19. 05. 2006. "

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orrisa v Debendra Nath padhi : (2005) 1 SCC 568 was distinguishable and the same would be inapplicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the Supreme Court decision in Padhi's case did not at all consider the provisions of Section 294 of the Code. He submitted that the application under Section 294 of the Code was one in which the CBI was merely called upon to admit or deny the documents filed along with the said application. It was for the CBI to admit or deny those documents and it is only, thereafter, that the question of utilising those documents would arise in the present case.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 2 (g) of the Code which defines "inquiry" and Section 5 of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 which provides for the cases under the said Act to be tried as a