SUCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He made an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production/summoning of certain documents. It was specifically prayed that complaint dated 22.4.1996 be produced in Court. He had also wanted the production of reports made by Harbhajan Singh, Inspector (Vigilance Bureau), Bachittar Singh, Inspector (Vigilance Bureau), Paras Ram, D.S.P. (Vigilance Bureau), Sukhbir Singh, D.S.P. (Vigilance Bureau), and other officers were also required to be summoned before framing of charge. Similar applications were also made by Ajit Singh Sidhu seeking directions for production of complaint dated 21.1.1997. It was argued on behalf of the State that the petitioner has merely tried to create a defence on the basis of the complaint. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Special Judge, Ropar, has dismissed the application. The learned Special Judge has found that the documents are irrelevant. He has also held that these documents can, in any event, be summoned in defence evidence.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.J.M.S. Bhalla, submits that the approach adopted by the learned Special Judge is against the settled law. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another, J.T. 1996(7) S.C. 6 : 1996(3) RCR (Crl.) 411 (SC)

(3.) I have considered the arguments put forwarded by the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Madras High Court in Nallammal's case (supra), is of no assistance to the case put forward by the State of Punjab. The Madras High Court after adverting the various judgments of the Supreme Court, has held that the judgment in Satish Mehra's case (supra) was rendered only on the peculiar facts available in that case. With respect, I am unable to agree with the view expressed by the Madras High Court. Perusal of paragraphs 13 to 15 of the judgment reproduced later in this order, would clearly demonstrate that the ratio laid down therein is of a general nature. These are not remarks made by the Supreme Court, merely for deciding the particular case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Umar Abdul's case (supra), was dealing with the question which related to the scope of investigation under Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court while framing the charge. In this context, it was observed that the Court is not expected to go deep into material which is produced before the Court. The question which has arisen before this court is as to whether the accused persons are entitled to make an application to the trial Court for production of certain documents before the framing of the charge. This question has been squarely answered by the Supreme Court in Satish Mehra's case (supra). In paragraph 13 to 15, the Supreme Court has observed as under :-