BHARAT PARIKHversusC.B.I. & ANR.

                        [2008] 10 S.C.R. 950
                                                                   ~




A                       BHARAT PARIKH
                                 v.
                          C.B.I. & ANR.
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2008)
                          JULY 14, 2008                            .;.

B
    [AlTAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,
                        JJ]

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
c       ss. 207, 227 and 482 - Prayer of accused for discharge
  after charges were
                 .    framed - HELD: At the stage of framing the
                                                              .

  charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and sub-
  missions of accused have to be confined to the material pro-
  duced by investigating agency - Documents subsequently
D filed cannot be relied upon to re-open the proceedings once
  charge has been framed or for invocation of power of High
  Court uls 482.
       .In the instant appeal arising out of rejection of
  accused's application seeking to reopen the proceedings
E and his discharge after the charges had been framed, the
  questions for consideration before the Court were: (i)
  whether having framed charges against an accused, a
  Magistrate has the jurisdiction in law to recall such order
  on the ground that the prosecution had failed to comply           .. -
F with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Crimi-
  nal Procedure" and (ii) whether in exercise of its inherent
  powers, the High Court could quash the charges framed
  and acquit the accused on account of such non-compli-
  ance with the provisions of Sections 207 and 238 of the
G Code
                                                                   ~
         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the language of Sections
    207 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while
H                               950
                                   BHARAT PARIKH v. C.B.I. & ANR.             951
....         \


                     framing charges, the trial court can only look into the A
                     materials produced by the prosecution while giving an
                     opportunity to the accused to show that the said materi-
                     als were insufficient for the purpose of framing charge.
                     [para 15] [956-F & G]
                          State of Orissa VS. Oebendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 sec       B
                     568; Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979
                     SC 94; and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Unga
                     Swamy and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3967 - relied on.
                         Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766      c
                     - overruled.
-                         1.2 The question of discharge by the Magistrate after
                     framing of charge does not, therefore, arise, notwith-
                     standing the submissions advanced with regard to de-
            f        nial of natural justice and a fair and speedy trial as con- D
                     templated under Article 21 of the Constitution, which have
                     no application whatsoever to the facts of the instant case.
                     [para 15] [957-A & B]
                         P Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4
                     SCC 578; Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1          E
  ....               SCC 225; Ohananjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
                     2006 Crl. L.J. 3873 - held inapplicable.
                           2.1 With regard to the High Court's powers to look
           ...       into materials produced on behalf of or at the instance of F
                     the accused for the purpose of invoking its powers un-
                     der Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charges
                     framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of
                     framing charge, evidence has to be led on behalf of the
                     prosecution to prove the charge if an accused pleads not
                                                                                    G
-      ~   .... .;
                     guilty to the charge and claims to be tried. It is only in the
                     exceptional circumstances that criminal proceedings may
                     be quashed to secure the ends of justice, but such a stage
                     will come only after evidence is led, particularly, when the
                     prosecution has produced sufficient material for charges
                                                                                     H
    952       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A to be framed. [para 16] [957-8,C & D]
         State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC
    335 - relied on.
       2.2At the stage of framing charge roving and fishing
B inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be con-
  ducted at such stage; and submissions on behalf of the
  accused have to be confined to the material produced by
  the investigating agency. The accused will get an oppor-
  tunity to prove the documents subsequently produced
c by the prosecution on the order of the Court, but the same
  cannot be relied upon to re-opeh the proceedings once
  charge has been framed or for invocation of the High
  Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code. (para 16]
  [957-E.& F]
D        3. No interference is warranted with the orders
    passed by the Special Judge or the High Court. (para 17]
    [957-G]
         CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1076 of 2008
E
         From the Judgment/Order dated 21.9.2006 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. Application No. 2328 of 2006
        Amit Desai, Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta, Reema
    Sharma and Mike Desai for the Appellant.
F
        M. Parasaran, A.S.G. Ranjan Narayan, B.K. Prasad, P.
    Parmeswaran and Ravindra KeshavraoAdsureforthe Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G         ALTAMAS KABIR,J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. Two legal propositions fall for consideration in this ap-
  peal. The first proposition deals with the question as to whether
  having framed charges against an accused, a Magistrate has
  the jurisdiction in law to recall such order on the ground that the
H prosecution had failed to comply with the provisions of Section
                        BHARAT PARIKH v. C.B.I. & ANR.                953
                             [ALTAMAS KABIR,J . ]

         207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An ancillary question        A
         will also arise as to whether such failure would render the fram-
         ing of charge void.
              3. The second proposition raises a question as to whether
         in exercise of its inherent powers, the High Court could quash
         the charges framed and acquit the accused on account of such        B
         non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 207 and 238 of
         the aforesaid Code.

               4. The appellant herein is the original accused No .5 in a
         special case pending before the learned Special Judge ,             c
         Mumbai in which charge was framed against him and the other
         accused persons on 13th December, 1996 under Sections 120-
         Bread with Sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal
         Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)( d)of the Pre-
         vention of Corruption Act, 1988. Though such charge had been
                                                                             D
         framed against the appellant on 13th December, 1996, after
         about five years an application was made on behalf of the ap-
         pellant in 2001, before the Special Court seeking directions for
         production of certain documents in the custody of the prosecu-
         tion . By order dated 271h August, 2001 , the said application
         was allowed and the prosecution was directed to produce all         E
         the documents referred to in the statement of one Mr. P.K.R.K.
         Menon made on 241h February, 1993. The said documents were
         ultimately produced in 2002. Thereafter, the appellant filed an
~   ..   application for re-opening the proceedings and for discharge,
         which was rejected by the learned Special Judge by his order        F
         dated 151 April, 2006.

               5. In rejecting the said application, the learned Special
         Judge relied primarily on the decision of this Court in the case
         of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1979 SC
                                                                             G
         94] in which this Court had held that once a charge is framed,
         the Magistrate has no power under Section 227 or any other
         provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel such
         charge and to discharge the accused. It was also observed that
         once charge has been framed and the accused pleads not guilty,
                                                                             H
    954       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A   the Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial to its logical
    end. In other words , once a charge is framed in a warrant case
    instituted either on complaint or a police report, the Magistrate
    has no power under the Code to discharge the accused. He
    can, thereafter, either acquit or convict the accused.
B        6. The learned Special Judge also relied another deci-
    sion of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Unga
    Swamy and Anr. [AIR 2004 SC 3967], where similar views have
    been expressed.
                                   '
c       7. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Special
  Judge, the appellant filed an application under Section 482 of
  the aforesaid Code before the Bombay High Court for quash-
  ing the proceedings of the Special ·case pending before the
  learned Special Judge, Mumbai and also for quashing the or-
D der dated 151 April, 2006, whereby the learned Special Judge
  had rejected the appellant's application for discharge.
        8. Taking a view, which was similar to that expressed by
  the learned Special Judge, the Bombay High Court dismissed
  the revisional application upon holding that there had been suf-
E ficient compliance by the prosecution with the requirement of
  law and that failure to produce the documents referred to in the
  order dated 271h August, 2001 would not nullify the proceedings
  from the stage of framing of charge. On a reference to the de-
  cision in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani's case (supra), the High Court
F took the view that since charge had been framed, the case               ...
  would have to go for trial as no case had been made out for
  exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code at the
  said stage.
       9. In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the orders
G passed by the learned Special Judge, as also the High Court.
        10. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted by learned
  senior counsel, Mr. Amit Desai , that the High Court had misap-
  plied the decision in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani's case (supra) as it
H was the case of the appellant that non-compliance of the provi-
                          BHARAT PARIKH v. C.B.I. & ANR.                    955
     )•                        [ALTAMAS KABIR,J.]

          sions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had               A
          vitiated the entire proceedings, including framing of charge. He
          submitted that such non-compliance was antithetical to the
          concept of a fair and speedy trial as contemplated in Article 21
          of the Constitution as was held in the case of Satish Mehra vs.
    4'
          Delhi Administration (1996) 9 sec 766. It was submitted that             B
          the entire proceedings were vitiated on such score as well. It
          was urged that the High Court had erred in not exercising its
          inherent power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
\
          entire proceedings, including framing of charge.
                11. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Desai re-          c   '




-         ferred to the decision of a seven-Judge Bench of this Court in
          P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC
          578, wherein the question of speedy trial had been considered
          and having regard to the views expressed in Abdul Rehman
          Antulay's case, (1992) 1 sec 225, it was held that if the delay          D
          in concluding a trial was oppressive or unwarranted, it would
          violate Article 21 of the Constitution and such trial or such pro-
          ceedings would be liable to be terminated.
                 12. Reference was also made to a decision of a three-
          Judge Bench in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi,                  E
          (2005) 1 sec 568, wherein while called upon to answer the
          wider question as to whether at the time of framing charge the
          trial court can consider material filed by the accused, reference
    ..    was disapprovingly made to an earlier two-Judges Bench de-
          cision in the case of Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration. In          F
          fact, the matter was heard on a reference as there was a con-
          flict of views between two Benches of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
          In Satish Mehra's case (supra) it was held that at the time of
          framing of charge the trial court was competent to consider
          material produced on behalf of the accused in the light of Sec-          G
          tion 227 of the Code which provides for an opportunity of being
    ·~    heard to the accused so that he was not unnecessarily made to
          undergo the entire gamut of a trial which could be concluded at
          the time of framing of charge itself, if the trial court was satisfied
          upon the material produced both by the prosecution and the               H
    956       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A   accused that there was no need to proceed to conduct the
    trial. The said view taken in Satish Mehra's case was, however,
    overruled in Debendra Nath Padhi's case.
          13. Reference was lastly made to a decision of a single
    Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Dhananjay Kumar Singh
8   vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Crl.L.J. 3873, where the principles
    of natural justice were held to be an integral part of a fair trial in
    the context of Article 21 of the Constitution and the Universal
    Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations on
    1Oth December, 1948.
c
         14. Appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (here-
  inafter referred to as 'CBI'), learned Additional Solicitor Genera!,
  Mr. Mohan Parasaran, submitted that a similar application (Crimi-
  nal Application No.1129of1997) made by the appellant had been
D dismissed on 2nd November, 1998, as none of the parties were
  Fepresented at the time of hearing of the application. He also
  submitted that having regard to the decision in Debendra Nath
  P.athi's case( supra) and also in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani's case (su-
  pra), the earlier ambiguity had been removed and it had been
E clearly laid down that not only could the trial court not recall its
  order fr:aming charge, which would result in re-opening of the
  proceedings, but it could not also consider the material produced
  on behalf of the accused at the time of framing charge.
        15. Of the two propositions raised in this appeal, the first
F proposition has been completely answered in Debendra Nath
  Padhi's case (supra) regarding the trial court's power to recall
  its order framing charge against an accused. Having regard to
  the language of Sections 207 and 227 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure, while framing charges the trial court can only look
G into the materials produced by the prosecution while giving an
  opportunity to the accused to show that the said materials were
  insufficient for the purpose of framing charge. The decision in
  Satish Mehra's case (supra) having been overruled in Debendra
  Nath Padhi's case (supra) the contention of Mr. Desai that the
H Magistrate should have re-opened the matter on the basis of
               BHARAT PARIKH v. C.B.I. & ANR.                   957
                    [ALTAMAS KABIR,J.]

the documents produced by the prosecution at the instance of           A
the accused, is no longer res-integra. The question of discharge
by the learned Magistrate after framing of charge does not,
therefore, arise, notwithstanding the submissions advanced with
regard to denial of natural justice and a fair and speedy trial as
contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution, which have          B
no application whatsoever to the facts of this case.
       16. With regard to the second proposition regarding the
High Court's powers to look into materials produced on behalf of
or at the instance of the accused for the purpose of invoking its
powers under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the charges          C
framed, it has to be kept in mind that after the stage of framing
charge evidence has to be led on behalf of the prosecution to
prove the charge if an accused pleads not guilty to the charge
and/or charges and claims to be tried. It is only in the exceptional
circumstances enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal            D
1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335, that a criminal proceeding may be
quashed to secure the ends of justice, but such a stage will come
only after evidence is led, particularly when the prosecution had
produced sufficient material for charges to be framed. As ob-
served in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra) at the stage of           E
framing charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and a
mini trial cannot be conducted at such stage. At the stage of fram-
ing of charge the submissions on behalf of the accused has to be
confined to the material produced by the investigating agency.
The accused will get an opportunity to prove the documents sub-        F
sequently produced by the prosecution on the order of the Court,
but the same cannot be relied upon to re-open the proceedings
once charge has been framed or for invocation of the High Court's
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
     17. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the or-        G
ders passed by the learned special Judge or the High Court,
and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
R.P.                                          Appeal dismissed.

                                                                       H