Back
2004 Supreme(Raj) 1147
Supreme Court
Honble Y. K. SABHARWAL, J. Honble D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Honble TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
State of Orissa - Appellant
Versus
Debendra Nath Padhi - Respondents
Appeal (Crl.) 497 of 2001 (With Slp (Crl.) No.1912 of 2003 and Crl.A.No.46 of 2004)
Decided On : November 29, 2004
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 228 read with Sec. 239 and 240 – Framing of charge – Whether the trial Court can at the time of framing of charge consider the material filed by the accused? – Held – No – At the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth.
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. (Para 27)
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 state of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police. (Para 28)
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the framing of charges and the admissibility of accused's material:
- At the stage of framing a charge, the trial court cannot consider material filed by the accused; it is only permitted to consider the record of the case and documents submitted by the prosecution under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- The expression "hearing the submissions of the accused" under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is limited to hearing submissions based on the material already on record produced by the police and does not grant an opportunity to file new material. (!)
- Accepting the contention that the accused can adduce their defense at the framing of charge stage would amount to conducting a "mini trial," which is impermissible and contrary to the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code. (!) (!)
- The accused has no right to produce any material or document at the stage of framing of charge or taking cognizance; this right is reserved for the stage of trial. (!) (!) (!)
- The Supreme Court has overruled the view in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration to the extent that it suggested the trial court could consider material produced by the accused at the Section 227 stage. (!)
- Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for the production of documents, does not confer a right on the accused to produce documents in their own possession at the initial stage of framing charges, as the concept of "necessity or desirability" under that section is not applicable to the defense at that specific stage. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- While the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction under Section 482 and Article 226 to quash proceedings in rare cases where unimpeachable evidence is presented, this power is distinct from the statutory right (or lack thereof) of the accused to produce material during the trial court's framing of charge proceedings. (!) (!) (!)
- The primary objective of Section 227 was to prevent harassment of the accused if the prosecution's own evidence is insufficient to sustain a trial, not to allow the accused to introduce new evidence to defeat the case before trial begins. (!) (!)
(2). In Satish Mehra vs. 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 vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others ( (1979) 4 SCC 274 ) and State of Bihar vs. 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 Mehras 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 vs. 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 Mehras 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 Mehras 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 Mehras 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.
(6). 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 docu
