Case Name : State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi
Equivalent citation: A.I.R.2005 SCC 369.
Date of Judgement: 29 /11/ 2004
Court: Supreme Court of India.
Case no : Appeal ( Crl) 497 of 2001
Petitioner: state of Orissa.
Respondent : Debendra Nath Padhi.
Bench : Y.k. sabharwal , D.M. Dharmadhikari Tarun Chatterjee
Fact : In the summarised form the case revolves around the question of whether the trial court, during the framing of charges, can consider material submitted by the accused. In the previous case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Another, it was observed that if the accused presents reliable material at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charges that could significantly impact the case’s sustainability, it should be considered by the court. The purpose of allowing the accused to make submissions under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to enable the court to determine whether it is necessary to proceed with the trial. If the material presented by the accused at that early stage can conclusively resolve the issue, it should not be disregarded, and the trial proceedings should not be unnecessarily prolonged.
During the arguments in this case, the views expressed in Satish Mehra’s case were strongly supported by the accused’s counsel on the grounds of justice, equity, and fairness, as well as Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They argued that overturning the previous judgment would lead to unwarranted harassment of the accused, prolonged trials, waste of court time, and unnecessary costs. On the other hand, the State argued that Satish Mehra’s case contradicted numerous previous decisions, undermined well-established legal principles, and disregarded the amendments made to the Code of Criminal Procedure over time. They contended that considering material submitted by the accused during the framing of charges would result in conducting a mini-trial, contrary to the objectives and scheme of the Code.
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Code, including Sections 227, 228, 239, and 240, which deal with the framing of charges and the consideration of materials at various stages. It was held that at the stage of framing charges, the trial court should only consider the material submitted by the investigating agency, and there is no legal requirement to grant the accused an opportunity to produce evidence in their defense or consider such evidence at that stage. The accused’s right to present material is granted during the trial, not at the stage of framing charges.
Furthermore, the court clarified that the term “the record of the case” mentioned in Section 227 refers to the case and the documents referred to in Section 209. The Code does not grant the accused the right to file any material or document during the framing of charges. The purpose of Section 227 is to prevent prolonged harassment of the accused when the evidence gathered after investigation falls short of minimum legal requirements. The Code was amended to eliminate the lengthy procedures of the old code, which caused delays and served no useful purpose. The evidence can now be taken only after the framing of charges.
Judgement: In this case, the main issue for determination is whether the trial court can consider material filed by the accused at the time of framing of charges. The Supreme Court had to determine the validity of the views expressed in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Another [(1996) 9 SCC 766], where it was observed that if the accused produces reliable material at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charges that may fatally affect the case’s sustainability, the court should not exclude such material.
The Supreme Court considered various decisions, including the three-judge Bench decisions in Superintend and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others [(1979) 4 SCC 274] and State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39]. It noted that the trial court, at the time of framing charges, can consider only the material presented by the investigating agency. However, considering the views expressed in Satish Mehra’s case, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.
The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments put forth by both parties. The counsel for the accused supported the views expressed in Satish Mehra’s case, stating that it ensures justice, equity, and fairness, and is in line with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the State contended that Satish Mehra’s case contradicts numerous decisions and disrupts established legal principles, resulting in a mini trial at the stage of framing charges and wastage of court time.
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Sections 227, 228, 239, and 240, which govern the framing of charges. Section 227 provides for the discharge of the accused if the judge finds insufficient grounds for proceeding against them. Section 228 deals with the framing of charges. Sections 239 and 240 apply to warrant cases triable by Magistrates.
The Court clarified that the expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 refers to the case and the documents referred to in Section 209. It emphasized that the Code does not grant the accused the right to file any material or document at the stage of framing charges. Such a right is only available during the trial.
The Court noted that Section 227 was incorporated in the Code to prevent prolonged harassment of the accused when the evidential materials gathered after investigation fall short of minimum legal requirements. The old code of 1898 had a lengthy procedure, but the current Code aims for expeditious disposal of cases. Therefore, the Court concluded that evidence can only be taken after the framing of charges.
Based on the above analysis, the Supreme Court upheld the view that the trial court should consider only the material presented by the investigating agency at the stage of framing charges. The accused does not have the right to introduce additional material or documents at that stage.
Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the arguments in favour of allowing the accused to produce material at the stage of framing charges and affirmed that the trial court’s consideration should be limited to the material submitted by the prosecution.
In conclusion : the court upheld the view that the trial court, during the framing of charges, should consider only the material submitted by the investigating agency, and the accused does not have the right to present additional material at that stage. The accused’s right to present evidence is preserved for the trial proceedings.
written by Bhupendra Kumar intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments