The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement of accused persons to documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not extend to additional documents beyond those required by the provision.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the accused Petitioners, namely, Smt. Zavekholu Epao and Smt. Phuholi Sumi. Also heard Mr. N.M. Jamir, learned PP, Nagaland.

2. This application under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the accused Petitioners challenging the order dated 21.6.2010 passed by Smt. M.T. Therieh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kohima in GR Case No. 40/2009, by which charges against the accused Petitioners have been framed under Section119/477/409/403/465/471/120(B) of IPC. Upon framing of the charge, the accused Petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, summon had been issued to PW-1 for examination on 20.7.2010. However, because of pendency of the instant proceeding, there is no progress in the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Trial Court.

3. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the accused Petitioners submits that since the learned trial court has failed to comply with the requirement of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure by not furnishing the required documents to the accused Petitioners and framed the charges against the accused petitioners, the entire proceeding including the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. In this connection, he has exclusively referred to the various orders passed in the proceeding towards framing of the charges against the accused petitioners.

4. Mr. Jamir, learned PP, Nagaland on the other hand submits that the instant proceeding is nothing but a dilatory tactics by the accused Petitioners to delay the criminal proceeding. He further submits that all the required documents having been furnished to the accused Petitioners as per the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure the accused Petitioners cannot go on demanding further documents. Supporting the impugned order, by which the charge against the accused Petitioners has been framed, the learned PP submits that the instant criminal revision petition is an abuse of the process of law and consequently liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record.

6. The criminal case against the accused Petitioners emanated on the basis of the Annexure-P/1 FIR dated 2.3.2009 lodged with the Officer-in-charge of North Police Station, Kohima. For a ready reference, the FIR is quoted below:

No. NPSC/CON-10/2009 Nagaland Public Service Commission Kohima

Dated Kohima, the 2nd March, 2009

To

The Officer-in-Charge,

North Police Station,

Kohima.

Sub: Complaint.

Sir,

In course of scrutiny of the Answer Scripts of Marks scored by the candidates short listed for final Merit list for NCS/NPS & Allied Services Recruitment Exam, 2008 after Interview and Lecturers Recruitment Exam, 2008 under Higher Education, it has been found that 11 (Eleven) candidates have been found involved in some malpractices in connivance with some staff of the Commission by replacing the actual Answer Scripts with other Answer Scripts written outside the Examination Hall.

You are therefore, requested to register a case and investigate into it for prosecution.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- 2.3.09

(Deli Irose M. Sakhrie)

Secretary

Nagaland Public Service Commission,

Kohima.

7. On the basis of the said FIR, case No. 0022/2009 under Section199/477/409/403/464/471/474/120B IPC was registered and investigated upon. On the basis of the materials available on records, the learned trial court has framed the aforementioned charge against the two accused Petitioners by the impugned order dated 21.6.2010.

8. In the revision petition, the petitioner has stated in details about the proceedings before the learned trial court. The various dates fixed till passing of the impugned order dated 21.6.2010 are indicated below along with the proceedings thereof as projected by the petitioners.

27-10-2009: The learned trial court on receip