JUDGMENT

Y. K. SABHARWAL, J. — Can the trial 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 pro¬viding 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 docu¬ments 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 Superintendent 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 an 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 touch¬stone 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 flinchingly show that there is no prospect of convic¬tion 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 proposi¬tions 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 document