Advocates:
MANOJ SWARUP

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 8

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 497 of 2001

PETITIONER:

State of Orissa

RESPONDENT:

Debendra Nath Padhi

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/2004

BENCH:

Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari & Tarun Chatterjee

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[With SLP (Crl.) No.1912 of 2003 and Crl.A.No.46 of 2004]

Y.K.Sabharwal, J.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 8

quality to clinchingly show that there is no prospect of conviction at the

conclusion of the trial. Satish Mehra’s case was further supported on

interpretation of Sections 227 and 239 of the Code.

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 propositions and making nugatory amendments

made in Code of Criminal Procedure from time to time and would result in

conducting a mini trial a