Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
Jasbir Singh and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 28572 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-06-2023
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu.
For the Respondent: Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab.
The accused has no right to produce any material at the stage of considering framing of charges, and the trial Court should not embark upon a mini trial at this stage.
Headnote:
documents - summoning of record - Indian Penal Code, Sections 409, 120-B; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought summoning of record at the stage of consideration regarding framing of charges, which was declined by the Trial Court. The petitioners were named in an FIR for alleged shortage of wheat bags stored in godowns of PUNSUP, under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the accused has no right to produce any material at the stage of considering framing of charges, and the trial Court is not expected to embark upon a mini trial at this stage. The documents sought to be produced were in the nature of reports and letters, which could not be made a basis for framing charges or discharging the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had the right to produce additional documents at the stage of considering framing of charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the legal position established in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568, which held that the accused has no right to produce any material at the stage of framing charges. The Court emphasized that the trial Court should not embark upon a mini trial at this stage.
Final Decision: The Court found no merit in the petition and affirmed the impugned order, dismissing the petition.
JUDGMENT :
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
1. The petitioners assail order dated 24.5.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which an application filed by them seeking summoning of record at the stage of consideration regarding framing of charges, has been declined.
2. The petitioners are named in FIR No.12 dated 5.11.2014 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Jalandhar, under Sections 409, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Annexure P-1). The allegations, as per FIR, in nutshell are that upon a surprise checking of stocks of wheat bags stored in three godowns of PUNSUP, at Shahkot, District Jalandhar (D.K. Open Palinth Godown, Bains Covered Godown and Bains Open Palinth Godown), it was found that there was shortage of 11,346 bags in respect of the stocks for the year 2013-14 and year 2014-15. It is alleged that during physical verification, 100% weighment of only two stacks was conducted and that while stacks appeared to be proper and complete from outside, but from inside there was deficiency. It is alleged that on the basis of deficiency found in two stacks (228+267), the average deficiency per stack would be 248 bags and as such, total deficiency in respect of 273 stacks was feared to be of about 67,704 bags. It is alleged that Jasbir Singh, District Incharge, PUNSUP, Jalandhar, Yadwinder Singh, Field officer PUNSUP Jalandhar, Chaman Lal Inspector-2 Double Locker and Sukhminder Pal son of Mahinder Pal. Labour and Cartage Contractor (2014-15), Shahkot Center, District Jalandhar had connived together and were directly responsible for the shortages.
3. The matter was investigated by the police and challan was presented. The petitioners moved an application dated 1.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) seeking issuance of directions to prosecution to furnish certain documents, which are in the nature of inquiry reports etc. The said application was resisted by the State and a reply was filed. The Trial Court, upon considering the said application, dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 24.5.2023 (Annexure P-5).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents sought to be summoned are of sterling nature and will go to root of the case and that in case the same are not provided to them, the petitioners would stand seriously prejudiced. The learned counsel, in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submissions places reliance upon State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568 and Nitya Dharamananda alias K. Lenin and Anr. vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy, 2018 (2) SCC 93.
5. This Court has considered the submissions addressed before this Court.
6. The allegations against the petitioner-Jasbir Singh who was posted as District Incharge, PUNSUP, Jalandhar and petitioner-Yadwinder Singh who was posted as Field officer, PUNSUP, are that they in connivance with other officials were responsible for causing shortage in stocks of wheat bags stored in godowns of PUNSUP. The documents sought to be produced, at the stage of consideration as regards framing of charges, are in the nature of reports of two inquiries conducted by police officers and copies of two letters exchanged between officers of Vigilance Bureau.
7. The legal position, with regard to production of documents at the stage of considering framing of charges has been set at rest by a Division Bench comprising three Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568, to which this very specific question had been referred to for adjudicataion. The relevant extracts are reproduced herein under :
“1. 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.
x x x
17. As opposed to the aforesaid legal position, the learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that the procedure which deprives the accused to seek dis
