IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO Nos. 94 & 95 of 2009. Date of decision: 11.8.2009. 1. Cr.MMO No. 94 of 2009. Ashok Sharma …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr.MMO No. 95 of 2009. Ashok Sharma …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This judgement shall dispose of two petitions i.e. Cr.MMO Nos. 94 and 95 of 2009. The petitioner in Cr.MMO No. 94 of 2009 has prayed that the case titled as State vs. Ashok Sharma pending for consideration of charge before the Special Judge (Forests), Shimla may be ordered to be adjourned beyond 20.8.2009 or till such time the documents requisitioned from the respondent are supplied to him, as directed by the H.P. State Information Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Commission. It has also been prayed that petitioner may be allowed to place those documents before the trial court for consideration at the time of framing of charge in a case arising out FIR No. 18 of 1998. In Cr.MMO No. 95 of 2009 similar prayer has been made with respect to FIR No. 17 of 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that FIR No. 17 of 1997 has been registered on 27.11.1997, under Sections 420, 409, 218, 120-B IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. FIR No. 18 of 1998 dated 21.8.1998 has been registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409, 218, 109, 34, 120-B and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that cases arising out of FIR Nos. 17/97 and 18/98 are listed on 11.8.2009 for consideration of charge before the Special Judge (Forests), Shimla. It has been alleged that during investigation various inquiries were conducted against the petitioner and in those inquiries no case was made out against the petitioner. However, for extraneous reasons, challans were filed against the petitioner before Special Judge (Forests), Shimla. The petitioner has obtained copy of one of such inquiry reports Annexure P-1. In other inquiries conducted by Enforcement as well as Vigilance Departments, the petitioner believes that the allegations levelled against him were not substantiated. 3. The petitioner had applied for said inquiry reports, but the respondent took the stand that record had been sent to the court. The petitioner took permission from the trial court to inspect the record but no such record of inquiries was available on the court record. The petitioner thereafter approached H.P. State Information …3… Commission and a direction was given to the police by the Commission to supply requisite documents to the petitioner within three weeks from 27.7.2009 and latest by 20.8.2009. In these circumstances, the petitioner has submitted that he will be in a better position to argue his case at the time of charge, if he is equipped with the copies of documents for which direction has been given by the Commission to the Police for supplying the same to the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the cases fixed before Special Judge (Forests) on 11.8.2009 arising out of FIR Nos. 17/97 and 18/98 may be ordered to be adjourned after 20.8.2009 and petitioner be allowed to place the documents, which he has sought from the police department before Special Judge at the time of consideration of charge in both the cases. 4. The purpose of adjournment of cases on 11.8.2009 fixed in the trial court is to the effect that on the adjourned date, the petitioner wants to take the help of documents at the time of consideration of charge, which according to him, he has applied and the Commission has directed the police department to supply the same to the petitioner before 20.8.2009. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Devendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 has held that at the time of framing of charge or taking cognizance, the accused has no right to produce any material. This being the position, the petitioner is required to submit before the trial court at the time of consideration of charge on the basis of material, which has been collected and submitted before the trial court in the form of challan. The petitioner cannot be granted time to produce the …4… documents and place the same before the trial court at the time of consideration of charge. In these circumstances, neither the cases of the petitioner can be ordered to be adjourned on 11.8.2009 nor the petitioner can be permitted to place the documents on record in the cases in the trial court at the time of consideration of charge. There is no merit in the petitions, and, therefore, both the petitions being Cr.MMO Nos. 94 and 95 of 2009 are dismissed. Let a copy of this judgement duly authenticated by the Court Secretary be placed on the file of Cr.MMO No. 95 of 2009. August 11, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge. …5…