Supreme Court of India State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 359, 2005 (1) SCC 568, 2004 AIR SCW 6813, 2005 CRI LJ (NOC) 88, 2005 (1) SRJ 409, 2005 (1) CALCRILR 487, 2004 (190) SUPREME 568, 2004 (10) SCALE 50, 2004 (4) LRI 860, 2004 (8) ACE 583, 2004 (7) SLT 339, (2004) 10 JT 303 (SC), 2005 CALCRILR 1 487, (2005) 1 CTC 134 (SC), (2005) 1 KER LT 80, (2005) 1 MARRILJ 623, 2005 SCC(CRI) 415, (2004) 4 KHCACJ 546 (SC), (2004) 8 SUPREME 568, 2005 (1) MARR LJ 623, (2004) 115 DLT 355, (2007) MATLR 260, (2005) 2 RECCRIR 480, (2004) 2 TAC 407, (2005) 1 DMC 61, (2005) 79 DRJ 47, (2005) 1 RECCRIR 297, (2005) 1 SCJ 222, (2004) 4 CURCRIR 343, (2005) 2 CHANDCRIC 8, (2005) 1 ALLCRILR 372, (2005) 99 CUT LT 348, (2005) 2 EASTCRIC 66, (2005) 1 GUJ LH 312, (2005) 1 ORISSA LR 357, (2005) 30 OCR 177, (2005) 1 ALLCRIR 71, (2004) 10 SCALE 50, (2005) 1 UC 438, (2005) 1 JLJR 348, (2005) 1 BLJ 765, (2005) 1 CRIMES 1, (2005) 51 ALLCRIC 209, (2005) 1 PAT LJR 416, 2005 CRILR(SC&MP) 169, (2005) 1 HINDULR 323, (2005) 1 RECCRIR 963, (2004) 3 CHANDCRIC 219, (2002) 3 JCR 384 (JHA), (2002) 3 ACC 463, (2003) 3 ACJ 2142, 2005 (1) ANDHLT(CRI) 198 SC, (2005) 1 ANDHLT(CRI) 198 CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 497 of 2001 PETITIONER: State of Orissa RESPONDENT: Debendra Nath Padhi DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/2004 Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari & Tarun Chatterjee JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [With SLP (Crl.) No.1912 of 2003 and Crl.A.No.46 of 2004] Y.K.Sabharwal, J. Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused, is the point for determination in these matters. In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Another [(1996) 9 SCC 766], a two judge Bench judgment, it was observed that if the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material should be looked into by the court at that stage. It was held that the object of providing an opportunity to the accused of making submissions as envisaged in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') is to enable the court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. It was further observed that there is nothing in the Code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments and, therefore, the trial court would be within its power to consider even material which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Code. When the arguments in the present case were heard by a twojudge Bench, considering various decisions including threejudge Bench decisions in Superindent 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 was observed that at the time of framing a charge the trial court can consider only the material placed before it by the investigating agency, there being no requirement in law for the court to grant at that stage either an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence in defence or consider such evidence the defence may produce at that stage. But having regard to the views expressed in Satish Mehra's case (supra) it was directed that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. The order referring the matter to larger Bench is reported in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2003) 2 SCC 711]. Accordingly, these matters have been placed before us to determine the question abovenoticed. The views expressed in Satish Mehra's case (supra) have been strongly supported by learned counsel for the accused on the ground of justice, equity and fairness and also on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India contending that reversal of that view would lead to unnecessary harassment to the accused by having to face the trial for years, waste of valuable time of the court, heavy cost, despite the fact that even at the early stage of framing of charge or taking cognizance the accused is in a position to produce unimpeachable material of sterling quality to clinchingly show that there is no prospect of conviction at the conclusion of the trial. Satish Mehra's case was further supported on interpretation of Sections 227 and 239 of the Code. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the State that the observations made in Satish Mehra's case run counter to the views expressed by this court in large number of decisions, it amounts to upsetting wel