Crl. Misc. No. M-15909 of 2008 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15909 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.09.2011 Kartar Singh .......... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Brar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH , J. Challenge to order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana (Annexure P-9) has been made in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), vide which the application filed by the petitioner for placing on record the certified copy of the judgments passed by the Civil Court and for considering the same at the time of consideration of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C, for discharge in case FIR No.105 dated 10.6.2007 under Sections 307, 452, 447, 427, 379, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') read with Section 25, 27. 54. 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, has been dismissed. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been registered against the petitioner with a mala fide intention, although, no such incident has occurred or had taken place. He contends Crl. Misc. No. M-15909 of 2008 -2- that two of the sons of the petitioner filed a civil suit wherein the sale deeds executed by the complainant Harchand Singh in favour of his son Gurmail Singh, were declared null and void, vide judgment and decree dated 27.4.2006, as also the judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) dated 23.9.1998 dismissing the civil suit filed by Gurmail Singh son of Harchand Singh against the petitioner. These two judgments were already part of the records of the Court, as they were placed on record before the trial Court at the earlier stage when the regular bail application of the petitioner was being heard, on which ground, the petitioner was granted bail. It was also the part of the application preferred by the co-accused in the High Court and was also taken into consideration by this Court while allowing the same. The two Civil Court judgments, which were sought to be placed on record by the petitioner through the application, being already on the records, the same could have been allowed by the Court, to be considered while deciding the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge by the petitioner. By not taking into consideration the said application, which would go to the root of the controversy, as this evidence was unimpeachable and sterling quality, which would go to demolish the case of the prosecution altogether, grave prejudice will be caused. He on this basis contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the dismissal of the application subject matter of impugned order dated 13.6.2008 would prejudiciously affect the right of the petitioner of speedy trial being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner would, without any basis, be exposed to the protracted trial leading to his harassment and the material which is sought to be produced by the petitioner before the trial Court would clinch the issue. In any case, these documents are part of the Court record which has earlier been produced and therefore, the present application deserves to be allowed and these judgments should be taken into consideration at the time of framing of charge. Crl. Misc. No. M-15909 of 2008 -3- On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that the Court at the time of framing of charge can only look and take into consideration the report submitted by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which is accompanied with the other records. These judgments are not part of the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and therefore, cannot be taken into consideration by the Court. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Pandhi, 2005(1) SCC 568. Accordingly, he supports the order passed by the learned trial Court and prays for dismissing this petition preferred by the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The basic points, which are required to be determined by this Court, are :- (i) Whether the documents which are not part of the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C by the police can be taken into consideration by the Court at the stage of framing of charge? (ii) Can the trial Court, at the time of framing of charge, consider the material filed by the accused? and (iii) Whether the documents placed on record during the consideration of the bail application of the accused be taken into consideration at the stage of framing of charge? Questions No.1 & 2 are no more in issue, as the same stand settled by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Pandhi (supra), wherein it has been held that at the time of framing of charge or taking Crl. Misc. No. M-15909 of 2008 -4- cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. 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 and the defence of the accused cannot be put forth at that stage. If that is permitted it would be against the criminal jurisprudence. While interpreting the expression “the record of the case” and the word “case” used under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. it was held that it clearly meant the records and the documents or articles produced with the report submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the accused has no right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge and this right is only granted / is available at the stage of trial. The only right available to the accused at the stage under Section 227 & 228 Cr.P.C. was of being heard and nothing beyond that. In para 18 of the said judgment, it has been held as follows :- “18. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The reliance on Articles 14 and 21 is misplaced. The scheme of the Code and object with which Section 227 was incorporated and Sections 207 and 207-A omitted have already been noticed. Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. 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 learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. By way of illustration, it may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may have to be Crl. Misc. No. M-15909 of 2008 -5- examined at the stage of framing of charge if the contention of the accused is accepted despite the well-settled proposition that it is for the accused to lead evidence at the trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of charge, in case we accept the contention put forth on behalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well settled for over one hundred years now. 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 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.” In the light of the answer to the above two issues, the third issue also has to be answered in the negative, as the Court at the stage of framing of charge cannot look beyond anything more than the report, documents or articles produced with it. It is an admitted position in this case that the judgments which were sought to be placed on record at the stage of consideration of the application for discharge moved by the petitioner were not part of the challan presented by the Investigating Agency and therefore could not be looked into or permitted to be brought on record for consideration at the stage of consideration of framing charge. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed, the impugned order passed by the learned Crl. Misc. No. M-15909 of 2008 -6- Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana dated 13.6.2008 (Annexure P-9) is in accordance with law. The trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law and expedite the matter. 14.09.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE