LexSTATE OF ORISSA versus DEVENDRA NATH PADHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c ST A TE OF ORISSA v. DEVENDRA NA TH PADHI NOVEMBER 29, 2004 [Y.K. SABHARWAL, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Ss. 91, 173, 209, 227, 228, 229 and 240: Material produced by accused at the stage of framing of charge- Consideration of-Held: Material produceil by the prosecution alone need to be considered by the trial Court and not the one produced by the accused-Since evidence could be taken only after framing of charge, D accused could produce the material at that stage only. E Section 91-Documents necessary/desirable for defence of the accused-Discussed. Words and Phrases : 'Hearing the submissions of the accused'-Meaning of in the context of Section 227. of the Code. The issue which arose for consideration in these criminal appeals F was as to whether the Trial Court could, at the time of framing of charge, consider the material furnished by the accused. Earlier, when arguments in the present case were heard by a Division Bench of this Court, it was observed that the issue was already considered and answered in affirmative by a Division Bench of the G Court in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr., [1996) 9 SCC 766. However conflicting/opposite views have also been expressed by this Court in its various decisions including a three-Judge Bench decision in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors., [1979] 4 SCC 274 and State of Bihar v. H Ramesh Singh, [1977] 4 SCC 39. Hence, the case along with other connected 460 l ST A TE v. DEVENDRA NA TH PAD HI 461 cases have been referred to the present larger Bench of three Judges. Answering the question in negative and allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2001 and dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) l'l'o. 1912 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2004, the Court HELD: 1.1. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. [467-C] 1.2. Section 227 Cr.P.C. was incorporated in the Code with a view to save the accused from prolonged harassment which is a necessary concomitant of a protracted criminal trial. It is incorporated to eliminate harassment to accused persons when the evidential materials gathered after investigation fall short of minimum legal requirements. (467-D] A B c 1.3. This Court in its various decisions proceeded on the basis of D settled legal position that the material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused. The latter aspect relating io the accused though has not been specifically stated, yet it is implicit in the decisions. It seems to have not been specifically so stated as it was taken to be well settled proposition. (469-E] State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [1977] 4 SCC 39; Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors., (1980] 1 SCR 323; State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors., [2000] 8 SCC 239; State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.B. Johan· and Ors., [2000] 2 SCC 57 and State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors., (1997] 4 SCC 393, referred to. 1.4. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce F his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof G at that stage which is against criminal jurisprudence. It is in this light that the provision about hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be understood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The H 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot. mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the . submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police. [470-E, F, G, H; 471-A] B c Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar & Ors., [1994] 4 SCC 142; distinguished. 2. The law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.