RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE to the State on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on the request of the Court. Shri Brar accepts notice and has no objection to the condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition. Otherwise also, I find sufficient ground to allow this application for the reasons stated in the application. The limitation stands condoned in all the revision petitions.

(2.) THE grouse of the petitioner in all the revision petitions is that the learned Magistrate has committed patent illegality when he did not allow the petitioner to place documents on the file before arguing the matter of charge. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order held that if the accused wanted to produce the documents, he could summon the same during defence evidence. This observation and finding of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana on the face of it are illegal and against the law in view of the citation reported as Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, 1996(3) Recent C.R. 410, where it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that at the time of addressing on the charge, the hearing is not confined to oral arguments alone but other material produced by the accused can also be taken notice of.

(3.) THE provisions of Section 227 Cr.P.C. which were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said citation are at par with the provisions of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. Thus the learned Magistrate committed patent illegality when he did not allow the accused for the production of the documents before framing of the charge. Even the proposed documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are not such which could not throw light on the merits of the case. Resultantly, the impugned order is hereby set aside with all consequential proceedings. The learned Magistrate first will summon the requisite record and then to hear the arguments. Thereafter he may or may not frame the charge.