1. The inherent powers of this Court are invoked u/s 482 CrPC for assailing the interlocutory order dated 15.11.2017 passed in S.T. No. 112/2015 by which the trial Judge has dismissed an application under section 91 CrPC whereby the petitioners accused sought to bring on record the documents which were considered by the investigating agency for finding the plea of alibi of the petitioners to be correct which led the petitioners being not arrayed as accused in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution, despite petitioners having been implicated in the FIR.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that against the petitioners and other co-accused offence of murder was alleged in Crime No. 99/2014 wherein the petitioners were specifically named in the FIR but after conduction of investigation, the plea of alibi raised by the petitioners-accused was found to be correct by the investigating agency which led to the charge sheet being filed without petitioners being arrayed as accused. During conduction of trial, the testimony of witnesses were recorded which revealed that the petitioners were involved in the crime of murder which impelled the complainant/victim to file an application under section 319 CrPC praying for arraying the petitioners as accused. This application was allowed by interlocutory order dated 3.12.2016 in the said Sessions trial which came to be assailed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2241/2017. This Court while adjudicating the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2241/2017 allowed the same by quashing the impugned order solely on the ground that prior to passing of the order of arraying the petitioner as accused, no opportunity of hearing was afforded. While so holding this Court relied upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2017)7 SCC 706, which was attended with similar circumstances and had taken into account the earlier Constitutional Bench decision in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2014)3 SCC 92. Thereafter when the matter was taken up by the trial Court for re-consideration of application under section 319 CrPC the petitioners moved an application under section 91 CrPC seeking production of those documents on the basis of which the investigating agency had found the plea of the petitioners of alibi to be true. The said application has suffered dismissal by the impugned order on the ground that the evidence made available by the prosecution in the trial does not contain any such documents of which the petitioners have sought production under section 91 of the CrPC and therefore, it was impliedly held that if section 91 application is allowed then the Court would travel beyond the purview of section 319 CrPC.

3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

4. The Constitution Bench in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), while considering the scope and ambit of section 319 inter alia framed several question including question No. 3 which reads as under:-

“Question (iii) – Whether the word “evidence” used in section 319(1) CrPC has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial ?”

The above said question after due consideration of all the judicial verdicts on the point was answered in the following manner:-

“85. In view of the discussion made and the conclusion drawn hereinabove, the answer to the aforesaid question posed is that apart from evidence recorded during trial, any material that has been received by the Court after cognizance is taken and before the trial commences, can be utilized only for corroboration and to support the evidence by the Court to invoke the power under section 319 CrPC. The “evidence” is thus limited to the evidence during trial.”

5. From the above, it is evident that for the purpose of deciding application under section 319 CrPC the expr