STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DEBENDRA NATH PADHI

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(2.) In Satish Mehra vs. 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.

(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 vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others (1979) 4 SCC 274 and State of Bihar vs. 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 Mehras 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 vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2003) 2 SCC 711. Accordingly, these matters have been placed before us to determine the question above-noticed.