RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusted had the right to call and produce documents before addressing arguments on, the question of charge. In support of his contention he relies upon a judgment Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, 1996(3) Recent C.R. 410 : [1996(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 286 (S.C.)]. 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. The provisions of Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code are at par with the provisions of Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate committed a 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.

(2.) THE parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Magistrate on the next date of hearing. Orders accordingly.