Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said an accused does not have any right to produce any material at the stage of framing of charge as the trial court may proceed taking a prima facie view of the suspicious circumstances arisen on the basis of charge sheet and the evidence collected and recorded.

"At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognisance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Criminal Procedure Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge," a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar said.

The bench said the trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only.

"If the accused is able to demonstrate from the charge sheet material at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at that stage," the bench said.

The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the CrPC is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial, the bench said.

"Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only and therefore, the trial court can consider the material produced by the accused before the Investigating Officer," the bench added.

The apex court allowed an appeal filed by the Gujarat government against the High Court's order which permitted a revision application by Dilipsinh Kishore sinh Rao against the trial court's order.

The trial court rejected the discharge plea by the accused on his contention that the investigating officer and the sanctioning authority did not consider documents produced by him in a case related to possession of disproportionate assets.

It was alleged that the accused acting as Sub Inspector of Gujarat police between the period 2005 to 2011 misused his power to acquire assets in his and his wife’s name to the tune of Rs 1,15,35,319, beyond his known source of income.

He claimed the assets were obtained after loans from friends and family members, duly supported by documentary evidences.

The top court also said the revisional court, in such cases, cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not legally permissible. 

The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that trial court was dealing with an application for discharge, it said.

The bench further explained the primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. 

"The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged. The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 CrPC is to be understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency," the bench said.

The bench, in the case, set aside the HC's order and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter, issues raised by the accused have to be thrashed out during the course of the trial and at the stage of framing the charge mini trial cannot be held. 

Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Vs.
DILIPSINH KISHORSINH RAO