2004 (11) TMI 564 - SC - Indian Laws

Accused cannot submit evidence at charge framing stage. Case law overruled. Trial courts to expedite trials.

STATE OF ORISSA Versus DEBENDRA NATH PADHI

The court held that at the stage of framing charge or taking cognizance, the accused has no right to produce any material. The decision in *Satish Mehra's ... Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused? Whether 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? Issues Involved:1. Whether the trial court can consider material filed by the accused at the stage of framing of charge.Detailed Analysis:1. Consideration of Material Filed by Accused at the Stage of Framing of Charge:The primary issue in this case is whether the trial court can consider material filed by the accused at the stage of framing of charge. This question arose from conflicting judicial opinions, particularly between the judgments in *Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration* and other precedents.In *Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration* [(1996) 9 SCC 766], it was observed that if the accused produces reliable material at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge that might fatally affect the sustainability of the case, it would be unjust not to consider such material. The court held that the object of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) is to enable the court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. This view suggests that the trial court has the power to consider material produced by the accused at this stage.However, when the arguments in the present case were heard by a two-judge Bench, 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, without any requirement for the court to grant the accused an opportunity to produce evidence in defense at that stage. This view was supported by precedents such as *Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja* [(1979) 4 SCC 274] and *State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh* [(1977) 4 SCC 39].The larger Bench was convened to resolve this conflict. The court noted that the scheme of the Code, particularly Sections 227 and 228, does not provide for the accused to produce any material at the stage of framing of charge. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 227 is to save the accused from prolonged harassment due to a protracted trial when the evidence gathered is insufficient. The court also referred to the historical context, noting that the commitment inquiry under the old Code was lengthy and served no useful purpose, leading to its omission in the new Code.The court reviewed several decisions, including *State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh*, *Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja*, *State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi* [(2000) 8 SCC 239], and *State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.B. Johari* [(2000) 2 SCC 57], which consistently held that the trial court should only consider the material produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of charge.The court rejected the contention that depriving the accused of the opportunity to produce material at this stage would violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It held that such an interpretation would lead to a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charge, defeating the object of the Code. The court clarified that the expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' in Section 227 means hearing the submissions based on the record of the case filed by the prosecution and the documents submitted therewith, and nothing more.The court also addressed the argument regarding Section 91 of the Code, which allows for the summoning of documents. It held that the necessity and desirability of summoning documents under Section 91 must be examined with reference to the stage of the proceedings. The court concluded that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot invoke Section 91 to seek production of documents to show his innocence.In conclusion, the court held that at the stage of framing charge or taking cognizance, the accused has no right to produce any material. The decision in *Satish Mehra's case* was overruled to the extent it allowed the trial court to consider material produced by the accused at the stage of Section 227 of the Code. The court directed the trial court to proceed from the stage of framing of charge and expeditiously conclude the trial.Result:- Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2001 was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment.- Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1912 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2004 were dismissed.- The trial courts were directed to expeditiously conclude the trials.