Holding

Depositions taken under Chapter XV are evidence for charge‑framing under Section 244, and the accused must be given the opportunity to cross‑examine those witnesses before charges are framed.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether depositions taken by a magistrate under Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before taking cognizance could be used as evidence for framing charges under Part B of Chapter XIX, and whether the accused is entitled to cross‑examine those witnesses before charges are framed. Relying on Sections 244, 245 and 246 of the CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act, the Court held that such depositions constitute evidence for charge‑framing and that the accused has a salutary right to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses at the stage of Section 244. Denial of this right would prejudice the accused and defeat the purpose of a fair trial. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order set aside, and the Sessions Court’s original order restored. The Court also affirmed that the right to cross‑examination is a fundamental component of the accused’s defence.

Issues considered

Whether depositions recorded under Chapter XV of the CrPC before cognizance can be treated as evidence for framing charges under Section 244 of the CrPC.
Whether the accused is entitled to cross‑examine witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 244 before charges are framed under Section 246.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 200, s. 200(2), s. 201, s. 202, s. 203, s. 244, s. 245, s. 245(2), s. 246, s. 246(1), s. 246(4)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 137, s. 138, s. 3

Subjects

cross‑examinationright to defenceSection 244 CrPCSection 245 CrPCSection 246 CrPCevidencecharge framingmagistratecomplaintChapter XV CrPCChapter XIX CrPCIndian Evidence Actcriminal appeal

Judgment

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 55 [2013] 2 S.C.R. 56
v. CH. GANDHI [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
compulsorily retired employee, if eligible to get pension under A A SUNIL MEHTA & ANR.
the Pension Rules, is not affected. Rule 9(vii) was only dealing v.
with reduction or reversion but issuance of any other direction STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
was not a part of it. It has come by way of amendment. The (Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2013)
same being a lesser punishment than the maximum, in our
FEBRUARY 20, 2013
considered opinion, is imposable and the disciplinary authority B B
has not committed any error by imposing the said punishment, [T.S. THAKUR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
regard being had to the nature of charges. It can be looked MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]
from another angle. The rule making authority has splitted Rule
9(vii) into two parts - one is harsher than the other, but, both CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
are less severe than the other punishments, namely, compulsory C C
retirement, removal from service or dismissal. The reason ss. 244 and 246 – Evidence for purposes of framing of
behind it, as we perceive, is not to let off one with simple charge in a complaint case – Plea of complainant that
reduction but to give a direction about the condition of pay on evidence adduced under Chapter XV be treated as evidence
restoration and also not to impose a harsher punishment which for purposes of framing of charge – Held: Is untenable – In a
may not be proportionate. In our view, the same really does D criminal case, using a statement of a witness at the trial,
D
not affect any vested or accrued right. It also does not violate without affording to accused an opportunity to cross-examine,
any Constitutional protection. is tantamount to condemning him unheard – The process
under Chapter XV is conducted in the absence of accused,
51. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the order passed by whereas evidence within the meaning of Evidence Act and
the High Court that a double punishment has been imposed so also within the meaning of s.244, Cr.P.C. is what is
does not withstand scrutiny. E E recorded in the manner stipulated u/s 138 of Evidence Act –
The whole object underlying recording of evidence u/s 244
52. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The orders
passed by the High Court are set aside and the order of after accused has appeared, is to ensure that not only does
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is restored. the accused have opportunity to hear the evidence adduced
against him, but also to defend himself by cross-examining
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no F F
order as to costs. the witnesses – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 3 and 138.

R.P. Appeals allowed. In the instant appeal filed by the accused, the
question for consideration before the Court was: whether
depositions of the complainant and his witnesses
G recorded under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 before cognizance was taken by the
Magistrate would constitute evidence for the Magistrate
to frame charges against the accused under Part B of
Chapter XIX of the Code.
H 56
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 57 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR.
Allowing the appeal, the Court A A s.244 refers to evidence within the meaning of s.3 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Chapter X of the Evidence Act
HELD: 1.1. In a criminal case, using a statement of a deals with examination of witnesses and s 137 appearing
witness at the trial, without affording to the accused an in that Chapter defines the expressions examination-in-
opportunity to cross-examine, is tantamount to chief, cross and re-examination while s. 138 stipulates the
condemning him unheard. Life and liberty of an B order of examinations.It is trite that evidence within the
B
individual recognised as the most valuable rights cannot meaning of the Evidence Act and so also within the
be jeopardised leave alone taken away without meaning of s.244 of the Cr.P.C. is what is recorded in the
conceding to the accused the right to question those manner stipulated u/s 138 in the case of oral evidence.
deposing against him from the witness box. [para 17] [69- [para 13-15] [67-A-B, F-G; 68-D]
D-E]
C C 1.4. Under s.246, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required
1.2. The schemes of Chapters XV and XIX of the to frame in writing a charge against the accused “when
Code are totally different from each other. While Chapter such evidence has been taken” and there is ground for
XV deals with the filing of complaints, examination of the presuming that the accused has committed an offence
complainant and the witnesses and taking of cognizance which such Magistrate is competent to try and
on the basis thereof with or without investigation and D D adequately punish. Evidence referred to in ss. 244, 245
inquiry, Chapter XIX, Part B deals with trial of warrant and 246 must, on a plain reading of the said provisions
cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. The and the provisions of the Evidence Act, be admissible
trial of an accused under Chapter XIX and the evidence only if the same is produced and, in the case of
relevant to the same has no nexus proximate or documents, proved in accordance with the procedure
otherwise with the evidence adduced at the initial stage E E established under the Evidence Act which includes the
where the Magistrate records depositions and examines rights of the parties against whom this evidence is
the evidence for purposes of deciding whether a case for produced to cross-examine the witnesses concerned.
proceeding further has been made out. There is a [para 11 and 16] [65-C; 68-E-F]
qualitative difference between the approach that the
court adopts and the evidence adduced at the stage of F 1.5. Besides, because evidence under Part B of
F Chapter XIX of the Code has to be recorded in the
taking cognizance and summoning the accused and that
recorded at the trial. The difference lies in the fact that presence of the accused and if a right of cross-
while the former is a process that is conducted in the examination was not available to him, he would be no
absence of the accused, the latter is undertaken in his more than an idle spectator in the entire process. The
presence with an opportunity to him to cross-examine the G whole object underlying recording of evidence u/s 244
G after the accused has appeared is to ensure that not only
witnesses produced by the prosecution. [para 12] [65-G-
H; 66-A-D] does the accused have the opportunity to hear the
evidence adduced against him, but also to defend himself
1.3. The expression “Magistrate shall proceed to hear by cross-examining the witnesses with a view to
the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be showing that the witness is either unreliable or that a
produced in support of the prosecution” appearing in H H statement made by him does not have any evidentiary
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 57 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR.
Allowing the appeal, the Court A A s.244 refers to evidence within the meaning of s.3 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Chapter X of the Evidence Act
HELD: 1.1. In a criminal case, using a statement of a deals with examination of witnesses and s 137 appearing
witness at the trial, without affording to the accused an in that Chapter defines the expressions examination-in-
opportunity to cross-examine, is tantamount to chief, cross and re-examination while s. 138 stipulates the
condemning him unheard. Life and liberty of an B order of examinations.It is trite that evidence within the
B
individual recognised as the most valuable rights cannot meaning of the Evidence Act and so also within the
be jeopardised leave alone taken away without meaning of s.244 of the Cr.P.C. is what is recorded in the
conceding to the accused the right to question those manner stipulated u/s 138 in the case of oral evidence.
deposing against him from the witness box. [para 17] [69- [para 13-15] [67-A-B, F-G; 68-D]
D-E]
C C 1.4. Under s.246, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required
1.2. The schemes of Chapters XV and XIX of the to frame in writing a charge against the accused “when
Code are totally different from each other. While Chapter such evidence has been taken” and there is ground for
XV deals with the filing of complaints, examination of the presuming that the accused has committed an offence
complainant and the witnesses and taking of cognizance which such Magistrate is competent to try and
on the basis thereof with or without investigation and D D adequately punish. Evidence referred to in ss. 244, 245
inquiry, Chapter XIX, Part B deals with trial of warrant and 246 must, on a plain reading of the said provisions
cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. The and the provisions of the Evidence Act, be admissible
trial of an accused under Chapter XIX and the evidence only if the same is produced and, in the case of
relevant to the same has no nexus proximate or documents, proved in accordance with the procedure
otherwise with the evidence adduced at the initial stage E E established under the Evidence Act which includes the
where the Magistrate records depositions and examines rights of the parties against whom this evidence is
the evidence for purposes of deciding whether a case for produced to cross-examine the witnesses concerned.
proceeding further has been made out. There is a [para 11 and 16] [65-C; 68-E-F]
qualitative difference between the approach that the
court adopts and the evidence adduced at the stage of F 1.5. Besides, because evidence under Part B of
F Chapter XIX of the Code has to be recorded in the
taking cognizance and summoning the accused and that
recorded at the trial. The difference lies in the fact that presence of the accused and if a right of cross-
while the former is a process that is conducted in the examination was not available to him, he would be no
absence of the accused, the latter is undertaken in his more than an idle spectator in the entire process. The
presence with an opportunity to him to cross-examine the G whole object underlying recording of evidence u/s 244
G after the accused has appeared is to ensure that not only
witnesses produced by the prosecution. [para 12] [65-G-
H; 66-A-D] does the accused have the opportunity to hear the
evidence adduced against him, but also to defend himself
1.3. The expression “Magistrate shall proceed to hear by cross-examining the witnesses with a view to
the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be showing that the witness is either unreliable or that a
produced in support of the prosecution” appearing in H H statement made by him does not have any evidentiary
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 59 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR.
value or that it does not incriminate him. Section 245 of A A 2010 (1) SCR 171 referred to Para 22
the Code empowers the Magistrate to discharge the
accused if, upon taking of all the evidence referred to in CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
s. 244, he considers that no case against the accused has No. 327 of 2013.
been made out which may warrant his conviction.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2011 of the High
Whether or not a case is made out against the accused, B B Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application
can be decided only when he is allowed to cross-
No. 1917 of 2011.
examine the witnesses for otherwise he may not be in a
position to demonstrate that no case is made out against Ranjit Kumar, Uday B. Dube, R.R. Deshpande for the
him and thereby claim a discharge u/s 245 of the Code. Appellants.
[para 17] [68-G-H; 69-A-C] C C
U.U. Lalit, Ajay Kumar, Chetan Pandaya, Krithika Raghvan
1.7. Further, because the right of cross-examination Hemantika Wahi for the Respondents.
granted to an accused u/ss 244 to 246 even before
framing of the charges does not, in the least, cause any The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
prejudice to the complainant or result in any failure of
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
justice, while denial of such a right is likely and indeed D D
bound to prejudice the accused in his defence. The fact 2. The short question that falls for our determination in this
that after the court has found a case justifying framing appeal is whether depositions of the complainant and his
of charges against the accused, he has a right to cross- witnesses recorded under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal
examine the prosecution witnesses u/s 246(4) does not Procedure, 1973 before cognizance is taken by the Magistrate
necessarily mean that such a right cannot be conceded E E would constitute evidence for the Magistrate to frame charges
to him before the charges are framed or that Parliament against the accused under Part B of Chapter XIX of the said
intended to take away any such right at the pre-charge Code. The question arises in the following backdrop:
stage. [para 18] [69-E-H]
3. A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable
Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2009 F under Sections 406, 420 and 114 read with Section 34 of the
F
(4) SCR 515 = (2009) 14 SCC 115 – relied on Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed by respondent No.2-
Company before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhi Nagar,
Sambhaji Nagu Koli v. State of Maharashtra 1979 Cri LJ
Gujarat. The Magistrate upon examination of the complaint
390 (Bom); and Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra
directed an enquiry in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
& Ors. 2010 (1) SCR 171 = (2010) 11 SCC 520 – referred
G G by the jurisdictional police station. The report received from the
to.
police suggested that the dispute between the parties was of
Case Law Reference: a civil nature in which criminal proceedings were out of place.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate was not, however, satisfied with
2009 (4) SCR 515 relied on para 5 the police enquiry and the conclusion, and hence conducted an
1979 Cri LJ 390 (Bom) referred to Para 20 H enquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and issued
H
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 59 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR.
value or that it does not incriminate him. Section 245 of A A 2010 (1) SCR 171 referred to Para 22
the Code empowers the Magistrate to discharge the
accused if, upon taking of all the evidence referred to in CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
s. 244, he considers that no case against the accused has No. 327 of 2013.
been made out which may warrant his conviction.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2011 of the High
Whether or not a case is made out against the accused, B B Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application
can be decided only when he is allowed to cross-
No. 1917 of 2011.
examine the witnesses for otherwise he may not be in a
position to demonstrate that no case is made out against Ranjit Kumar, Uday B. Dube, R.R. Deshpande for the
him and thereby claim a discharge u/s 245 of the Code. Appellants.
[para 17] [68-G-H; 69-A-C] C C
U.U. Lalit, Ajay Kumar, Chetan Pandaya, Krithika Raghvan
1.7. Further, because the right of cross-examination Hemantika Wahi for the Respondents.
granted to an accused u/ss 244 to 246 even before
framing of the charges does not, in the least, cause any The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
prejudice to the complainant or result in any failure of
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
justice, while denial of such a right is likely and indeed D D
bound to prejudice the accused in his defence. The fact 2. The short question that falls for our determination in this
that after the court has found a case justifying framing appeal is whether depositions of the complainant and his
of charges against the accused, he has a right to cross- witnesses recorded under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal
examine the prosecution witnesses u/s 246(4) does not Procedure, 1973 before cognizance is taken by the Magistrate
necessarily mean that such a right cannot be conceded E E would constitute evidence for the Magistrate to frame charges
to him before the charges are framed or that Parliament against the accused under Part B of Chapter XIX of the said
intended to take away any such right at the pre-charge Code. The question arises in the following backdrop:
stage. [para 18] [69-E-H]
3. A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable
Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2009 F under Sections 406, 420 and 114 read with Section 34 of the
F
(4) SCR 515 = (2009) 14 SCC 115 – relied on Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed by respondent No.2-
Company before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhi Nagar,
Sambhaji Nagu Koli v. State of Maharashtra 1979 Cri LJ
Gujarat. The Magistrate upon examination of the complaint
390 (Bom); and Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra
directed an enquiry in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
& Ors. 2010 (1) SCR 171 = (2010) 11 SCC 520 – referred
G G by the jurisdictional police station. The report received from the
to.
police suggested that the dispute between the parties was of
Case Law Reference: a civil nature in which criminal proceedings were out of place.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate was not, however, satisfied with
2009 (4) SCR 515 relied on para 5 the police enquiry and the conclusion, and hence conducted an
1979 Cri LJ 390 (Bom) referred to Para 20 H enquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and issued
H
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 61 62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
process against the appellants for offences punishable under A A 6. Undeterred by the revisional order the respondent-
Sections 406 read with 114 IPC. company filed Special Criminal Application No.1917 of 2011
before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which
4. Aggrieved, the appellants unsuccessfully questioned the
application has been allowed by the High Court in terms of the
summoning order before the High Court in Criminal Misc.
order impugned before us. The High Court observed:
Application No.10173 of 2010. Inevitably the matter came up
B B
before the trial Court under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. where "In the facts of the case, it is not that the witnesses of the
the accused appeared pursuant to the summons issued by the complainant have not been examined, therefore, the
Court. Instead of adducing evidence in support of the evidence has been recorded. Therefore, at that stage the
prosecution as mandated by Section 244, the complainant filed
opportunity was available with the accused as provided
a pursis (memo) stating that he did not wish to lead any
C C under law to cross examine the witnesses, however, it is
additional evidence and that the evidence submitted along with
not availed of by exercising the right of cross examination.
the complaint may be considered as evidence for purposes of
framing of the charge. The Magistrate took the pursis on record It cannot be said that the procedure, as required, is not
and fixed the case for arguments on framing of charges. The followed. Therefore, the observation made by the learned
appellants' case is that written submissions filed by them before Sessions Judge relying on this judgment are
the Magistrate raised a specific contention that no charge could D D misconceived."
be framed against them as the complainant had not led any
7. It is difficult to appreciate the logic underlying the above
evidence in terms of Section 244 of the Code and that the
observations. It appears that the High Court considered the
depositions recorded before the Magistrate under Section 202
of the Cr.P.C. could not be considered as evidence for the deposition of this complainant and his witnesses recorded
purposes of framing of charges. The Magistrate, however, E E before the appearance of the accused under Section 202 of
brushed aside that contention and framed charges against the the Cr.P.C. to be 'evidence' for purposes of framing of charges
appellants under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 against the appellants. Not only that, the High Court by some
of the IPC. involved process of reasoning held that the accused persons
had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses when the
5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate, the F F said depositions were recorded. The High Court was, in our
appellants preferred Criminal Revision Application No.56 of opinion, in error on both counts. We say so for reasons that are
2011 before the Sessions Judge at Gandhi Nagar who allowed not far to seek. Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the same by his order dated 18th July, 2011 primarily on the
1973 deals with complaints made to Magistrates. Section 200
ground that non-compliance with the provisions of Section
which appears in the said Chapter inter alia provides that the
245(2) of the Cr.P.C. rendered the order passed by the
Magistrate unsustainable. The Sessions Judge accordingly
G G Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint shall
remitted the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present,
proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 244 to if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced
247 of the Code keeping in view the decision of this Court in to writing and signed by the complainant and the witnesses, as
Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2009) 14 also the Magistrate. An exception to that general rule is,
SCC 115. H H however, made in terms of the proviso to Section 200 in cases
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 61 62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
process against the appellants for offences punishable under A A 6. Undeterred by the revisional order the respondent-
Sections 406 read with 114 IPC. company filed Special Criminal Application No.1917 of 2011
before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which
4. Aggrieved, the appellants unsuccessfully questioned the
application has been allowed by the High Court in terms of the
summoning order before the High Court in Criminal Misc.
order impugned before us. The High Court observed:
Application No.10173 of 2010. Inevitably the matter came up
B B
before the trial Court under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. where "In the facts of the case, it is not that the witnesses of the
the accused appeared pursuant to the summons issued by the complainant have not been examined, therefore, the
Court. Instead of adducing evidence in support of the evidence has been recorded. Therefore, at that stage the
prosecution as mandated by Section 244, the complainant filed
opportunity was available with the accused as provided
a pursis (memo) stating that he did not wish to lead any
C C under law to cross examine the witnesses, however, it is
additional evidence and that the evidence submitted along with
not availed of by exercising the right of cross examination.
the complaint may be considered as evidence for purposes of
framing of the charge. The Magistrate took the pursis on record It cannot be said that the procedure, as required, is not
and fixed the case for arguments on framing of charges. The followed. Therefore, the observation made by the learned
appellants' case is that written submissions filed by them before Sessions Judge relying on this judgment are
the Magistrate raised a specific contention that no charge could D D misconceived."
be framed against them as the complainant had not led any
7. It is difficult to appreciate the logic underlying the above
evidence in terms of Section 244 of the Code and that the
observations. It appears that the High Court considered the
depositions recorded before the Magistrate under Section 202
of the Cr.P.C. could not be considered as evidence for the deposition of this complainant and his witnesses recorded
purposes of framing of charges. The Magistrate, however, E E before the appearance of the accused under Section 202 of
brushed aside that contention and framed charges against the the Cr.P.C. to be 'evidence' for purposes of framing of charges
appellants under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 against the appellants. Not only that, the High Court by some
of the IPC. involved process of reasoning held that the accused persons
had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses when the
5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate, the F F said depositions were recorded. The High Court was, in our
appellants preferred Criminal Revision Application No.56 of opinion, in error on both counts. We say so for reasons that are
2011 before the Sessions Judge at Gandhi Nagar who allowed not far to seek. Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the same by his order dated 18th July, 2011 primarily on the
1973 deals with complaints made to Magistrates. Section 200
ground that non-compliance with the provisions of Section
which appears in the said Chapter inter alia provides that the
245(2) of the Cr.P.C. rendered the order passed by the
Magistrate unsustainable. The Sessions Judge accordingly
G G Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint shall
remitted the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present,
proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 244 to if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced
247 of the Code keeping in view the decision of this Court in to writing and signed by the complainant and the witnesses, as
Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2009) 14 also the Magistrate. An exception to that general rule is,
SCC 115. H H however, made in terms of the proviso to Section 200 in cases
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 63 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
where the complaint is made by a public servant acting or A A prosecution" once the accused appears or is brought before
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, or where him. Section 245 empowers the Magistrate to discharge the
a Court has made the complaint, or the Magistrate makes over accused upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244,
the case for enquiry or trial by another Magistrate under Section if he considers that no case against the accused has been
192 of the Cr.P.C. made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction. Sub-
B B section (2) of Section 245 empowers the Magistrate to
8. Section 201 deals with the procedure which a discharge an accused even "at any previous stage" if for
Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case is reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate the charges are
required to follow. Section 202 empowers the Magistrate to considered to be "groundless". In cases where the accused is
postpone the issue of process against the accused either to not discharged, the Magistrate is required to follow the
inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be procedure under Section 246 of the Code. That provision may
C C
made by a police officer for the purpose of deciding whether at this stage be extracted:
or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Sub-section (2)
of Section 202 empowers the Magistrate to take evidence of "246. Procedure where accused is not discharged -
witnesses on oath in an inquiry under sub-section (1) thereof.
Section 203, which is the only other provision appearing in (1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any
Chapter XV, empowers the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint D D previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion
if he is of the opinion that no sufficient ground for proceeding that there is ground for presuming that the accused has
with the same is made out. committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which
such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his
9. There is no gainsaying that a Magistrate while taking opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall
cognizance of an offence under Section 200, whether such E E frame in writing a charge against the accused.
cognizance is on the basis of the statement of the complainant
and the witnesses present or on the basis of an inquiry or (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the
investigation in terms of Section 202, is not required to notify accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty
the accused to show cause why cognizance should not be or has any defence to make.
taken and process issued against him or to provide an F F (3) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record
opportunity to him to cross-examine the complainant or his the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.
witnesses at that stage.
(4) If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead or
10. In contra distinction, Chapter XIX of the Code regulates claims to be tried or if the accused is not convicted under
trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. While Part A of that sub-section (3), he shall be required to state, at the
Chapter deals with cases instituted on a police report, Part B G G
commencement of the next hearing of the case, or, if the
deals with cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks
Section 244 that appears in Part B of Chapter XIX requires fit, forthwith, whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and,
the Magistrate to "proceed to hear the prosecution" and "take if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution whose
all such evidence as may be produced in support of the evidence has been taken.
H H
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 63 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
where the complaint is made by a public servant acting or A A prosecution" once the accused appears or is brought before
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, or where him. Section 245 empowers the Magistrate to discharge the
a Court has made the complaint, or the Magistrate makes over accused upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244,
the case for enquiry or trial by another Magistrate under Section if he considers that no case against the accused has been
192 of the Cr.P.C. made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction. Sub-
B B section (2) of Section 245 empowers the Magistrate to
8. Section 201 deals with the procedure which a discharge an accused even "at any previous stage" if for
Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case is reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate the charges are
required to follow. Section 202 empowers the Magistrate to considered to be "groundless". In cases where the accused is
postpone the issue of process against the accused either to not discharged, the Magistrate is required to follow the
inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be procedure under Section 246 of the Code. That provision may
C C
made by a police officer for the purpose of deciding whether at this stage be extracted:
or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Sub-section (2)
of Section 202 empowers the Magistrate to take evidence of "246. Procedure where accused is not discharged -
witnesses on oath in an inquiry under sub-section (1) thereof.
Section 203, which is the only other provision appearing in (1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any
Chapter XV, empowers the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint D D previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion
if he is of the opinion that no sufficient ground for proceeding that there is ground for presuming that the accused has
with the same is made out. committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which
such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his
9. There is no gainsaying that a Magistrate while taking opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall
cognizance of an offence under Section 200, whether such E E frame in writing a charge against the accused.
cognizance is on the basis of the statement of the complainant
and the witnesses present or on the basis of an inquiry or (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the
investigation in terms of Section 202, is not required to notify accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty
the accused to show cause why cognizance should not be or has any defence to make.
taken and process issued against him or to provide an F F (3) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record
opportunity to him to cross-examine the complainant or his the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.
witnesses at that stage.
(4) If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead or
10. In contra distinction, Chapter XIX of the Code regulates claims to be tried or if the accused is not convicted under
trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. While Part A of that sub-section (3), he shall be required to state, at the
Chapter deals with cases instituted on a police report, Part B G G
commencement of the next hearing of the case, or, if the
deals with cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks
Section 244 that appears in Part B of Chapter XIX requires fit, forthwith, whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and,
the Magistrate to "proceed to hear the prosecution" and "take if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution whose
all such evidence as may be produced in support of the evidence has been taken.
H H
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
(5) If he says he does so wish, the witnesses named by A A complainant and the witnesses and taking of cognizance on the
him shall be recalled and, after cross-examination and re- basis thereof with or without investigation and inquiry, Chapter
examination (if any), they shall be discharged. XIX Part B deals with trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise
than on a police report. The trial of an accused under Chapter
(6) The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the XIX and the evidence relevant to the same has no nexus
prosecution shall next be taken, and after cross- B B proximate or otherwise with the evidence adduced at the initial
examination and re-examination (if any), they shall also be stage where the Magistrate records depositions and examines
discharged." the evidence for purposes of deciding whether a case for
proceeding further has been made out. All that may be said is
11. A simple reading of the above would show that the
that evidence that was adduced before a Magistrate at the
Magistrate is required to frame in writing a charge against the
accused "when such evidence has been taken" and there is C C stage of taking cognizance and summoning of the accused may
often be the same as is adduced before the Court once the
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
accused appears pursuant to the summons. There is, however,
offence triable under this Chapter which such Magistrate is
a qualitative difference between the approach that the Court
competent to try and adequately punish.
adopts and the evidence adduced at the stage of taking
12. Sections 244 to 246 leave no manner of doubt that D cognizance and summoning the accused and that recorded at
D
once the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate the trial. The difference lies in the fact that while the former is a
the prosecution has to be heard and all such evidence as is process that is conducted in the absence of the accused, the
brought in support of its case recorded. The power to discharge latter is undertaken in his presence with an opportunity to him
is also under Section 245 exercisable only upon taking all of to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution.
the evidence that is referred to in Section 244, so also the E E 13. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the
power to frame charges in terms of Section 246 has to be
respondent-complainant strenuously argued that Section 244
exercised on the basis of the evidence recorded under Section
does not envisage, leave alone provide for in specific terms,
244. The expression "when such evidence has been taken"
cross-examination of witnesses produced by the prosecution
appearing in Section 246 is significant and refers to the
by the accused. He submitted that since the provision of Section
evidence that the prosecution is required to produce in terms
F F 244 did not recognise any such right of an accused before
of Section 244(1) of the Code. There is nothing either in the
framing of charges, it did not make any difference whether the
provisions of Sections 244, 245 and 246 or any other provision
Court was evaluating evidence adduced at the stage of
of the Code for that matter to even remotely suggest that
cognizance and summoning of the accused or that adduced
evidence which the Magistrate may have recorded at the stage
after he had appeared before the Magistrate under Section
of taking of cognizance and issuing of process against the
accused under Chapter XV tantamounts to evidence that can G G 244. He particularly drew our attention to sub-section (4) to
Section 246 which requires the Magistrate to ask the accused
be used by the Magistrate for purposes of framing of charges
whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and if so, which of
against the accused persons under Section 246 thereof without
the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been
the same being produced under Section 244 of the Code. The
taken. It was contended by Mr. Lalit that the provision of sub-
scheme of the two Chapters is totally different. While Chapter
XV deals with the filing of complaints, examination of the H H section (4) to Section 246 provides for cross-examination by
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
(5) If he says he does so wish, the witnesses named by A A complainant and the witnesses and taking of cognizance on the
him shall be recalled and, after cross-examination and re- basis thereof with or without investigation and inquiry, Chapter
examination (if any), they shall be discharged. XIX Part B deals with trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise
than on a police report. The trial of an accused under Chapter
(6) The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the XIX and the evidence relevant to the same has no nexus
prosecution shall next be taken, and after cross- B B proximate or otherwise with the evidence adduced at the initial
examination and re-examination (if any), they shall also be stage where the Magistrate records depositions and examines
discharged." the evidence for purposes of deciding whether a case for
proceeding further has been made out. All that may be said is
11. A simple reading of the above would show that the
that evidence that was adduced before a Magistrate at the
Magistrate is required to frame in writing a charge against the
accused "when such evidence has been taken" and there is C C stage of taking cognizance and summoning of the accused may
often be the same as is adduced before the Court once the
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
accused appears pursuant to the summons. There is, however,
offence triable under this Chapter which such Magistrate is
a qualitative difference between the approach that the Court
competent to try and adequately punish.
adopts and the evidence adduced at the stage of taking
12. Sections 244 to 246 leave no manner of doubt that D cognizance and summoning the accused and that recorded at
D
once the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate the trial. The difference lies in the fact that while the former is a
the prosecution has to be heard and all such evidence as is process that is conducted in the absence of the accused, the
brought in support of its case recorded. The power to discharge latter is undertaken in his presence with an opportunity to him
is also under Section 245 exercisable only upon taking all of to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution.
the evidence that is referred to in Section 244, so also the E E 13. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the
power to frame charges in terms of Section 246 has to be
respondent-complainant strenuously argued that Section 244
exercised on the basis of the evidence recorded under Section
does not envisage, leave alone provide for in specific terms,
244. The expression "when such evidence has been taken"
cross-examination of witnesses produced by the prosecution
appearing in Section 246 is significant and refers to the
by the accused. He submitted that since the provision of Section
evidence that the prosecution is required to produce in terms
F F 244 did not recognise any such right of an accused before
of Section 244(1) of the Code. There is nothing either in the
framing of charges, it did not make any difference whether the
provisions of Sections 244, 245 and 246 or any other provision
Court was evaluating evidence adduced at the stage of
of the Code for that matter to even remotely suggest that
cognizance and summoning of the accused or that adduced
evidence which the Magistrate may have recorded at the stage
after he had appeared before the Magistrate under Section
of taking of cognizance and issuing of process against the
accused under Chapter XV tantamounts to evidence that can G G 244. He particularly drew our attention to sub-section (4) to
Section 246 which requires the Magistrate to ask the accused
be used by the Magistrate for purposes of framing of charges
whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and if so, which of
against the accused persons under Section 246 thereof without
the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been
the same being produced under Section 244 of the Code. The
taken. It was contended by Mr. Lalit that the provision of sub-
scheme of the two Chapters is totally different. While Chapter
XV deals with the filing of complaints, examination of the H H section (4) to Section 246 provides for cross-examination by
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 67 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
the accused only after charges have been framed and not A A re-examined.
before. There is, in our opinion, no merit in that contention which
needs to be noticed only to be rejected. We say so for reasons The examination and cross-examination must relate to
more than one. In the first place, the expression "Magistrate relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be
shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his
evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution" examination-in-chief.
B B
appearing in Section 244 refers to evidence within the
Direction of re-examination.- The re-examination shall be
meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section
directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-
3 reads as under:
examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the
3. Interpretation clause - Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may
C C further cross-examine upon that matter."
In this Act the following words and expressions are used
in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears 15. It is trite that evidence within the meaning of the
from the context:- Evidence Act and so also within the meaning of Section 244
of the Cr.P.C. is what is recorded in the manner stipulated
xx xx xx D D under Section 138 in the case of oral evidence. Documentary
evidence would similarly be evidence only if the documents are
"Evidence".-"Evidence" means and includes- proved in the manner recognised and provided for under the
Evidence Act unless of course a statutory provision makes the
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to
document admissible as evidence without any formal proof
be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of
thereof.
fact under inquiry, E E
16. Suffice it to say that evidence referred to in Sections
such statements are called oral evidence;
244, 245 and 246 must, on a plain reading of the said
(2) all documents including electronic records produced for provisions and the provisions of the Evidence Act, be
the inspection of the Court, admissible only if the same is produced and, in the case of
F F documents, proved in accordance with the procedure
such documents are called documentary evidence." established under the Evidence Act which includes the rights
of the parties against whom this evidence is produced to cross-
14. We may also refer to Chapter X of the Evidence Act
examine the witnesses concerned.
which deals with examination of witnesses. Section 137
appearing in that Chapter defines the expressions 17. Secondly, because evidence under Chapter XIX (B)
G G
examination-in-chief, cross and re-examination while Section has to be recorded in the presence of the accused and if a right
138 stipulates the order of examinations and reads as under: of cross-examination was not available to him, he would be no
more than an idle spectator in the entire process. The whole
"138. Order of examinations.- Witnesses shall be first
object underlying recording of evidence under Section 244 after
examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires)
the accused has appeared is to ensure that not only does the
cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) H H
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 67 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
the accused only after charges have been framed and not A A re-examined.
before. There is, in our opinion, no merit in that contention which
needs to be noticed only to be rejected. We say so for reasons The examination and cross-examination must relate to
more than one. In the first place, the expression "Magistrate relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be
shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his
evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution" examination-in-chief.
B B
appearing in Section 244 refers to evidence within the
Direction of re-examination.- The re-examination shall be
meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section
directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-
3 reads as under:
examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the
3. Interpretation clause - Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may
C C further cross-examine upon that matter."
In this Act the following words and expressions are used
in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears 15. It is trite that evidence within the meaning of the
from the context:- Evidence Act and so also within the meaning of Section 244
of the Cr.P.C. is what is recorded in the manner stipulated
xx xx xx D D under Section 138 in the case of oral evidence. Documentary
evidence would similarly be evidence only if the documents are
"Evidence".-"Evidence" means and includes- proved in the manner recognised and provided for under the
Evidence Act unless of course a statutory provision makes the
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to
document admissible as evidence without any formal proof
be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of
thereof.
fact under inquiry, E E
16. Suffice it to say that evidence referred to in Sections
such statements are called oral evidence;
244, 245 and 246 must, on a plain reading of the said
(2) all documents including electronic records produced for provisions and the provisions of the Evidence Act, be
the inspection of the Court, admissible only if the same is produced and, in the case of
F F documents, proved in accordance with the procedure
such documents are called documentary evidence." established under the Evidence Act which includes the rights
of the parties against whom this evidence is produced to cross-
14. We may also refer to Chapter X of the Evidence Act
examine the witnesses concerned.
which deals with examination of witnesses. Section 137
appearing in that Chapter defines the expressions 17. Secondly, because evidence under Chapter XIX (B)
G G
examination-in-chief, cross and re-examination while Section has to be recorded in the presence of the accused and if a right
138 stipulates the order of examinations and reads as under: of cross-examination was not available to him, he would be no
more than an idle spectator in the entire process. The whole
"138. Order of examinations.- Witnesses shall be first
object underlying recording of evidence under Section 244 after
examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires)
the accused has appeared is to ensure that not only does the
cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) H H
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 69 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
accused have the opportunity to hear the evidence adduced A A 19. We are supported in the view taken by us by the
against him, but also to defend himself by cross-examining the decision of this Court in Ajoy Kumar Ghose (supra). That was
witnesses with a view to showing that the witness is either a case where the trial Court had framed charges against the
unreliable or that a statement made by him does not have any accused without the prosecution having any evidence
evidentiary value or that it does not incriminate him. Section whatsoever in terms of Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. This Court
245 of the Code, as noticed earlier, empowers the Magistrate B B held that the procedure adopted by the trial Court was not
to discharge the accused if, upon taking of all the evidence correct because the language of Section 246(1) Cr.P.C. itself
referred to in Section 244, he considers that no case against sufficiently indicated that charges have to be framed against
the accused has been made out which may warrant his the accused on the basis of some evidence offered by the
conviction. Whether or not a case is made out against him, complainant at the stage of Section 244(1). This Court
can be decided only when the accused is allowed to cross- C C observed:
examine the witnesses for otherwise he may not be in a
position to demonstrate that no case is made out against him "The language of the Section clearly suggests that it is on
and thereby claim a discharge under Section 245 of the Code. the basis of the evidence offered by the complainant at the
It is elementary that the ultimate quest in any judicial stage of Section 244(1) Cr.P.C., that the charge is to be
determination is to arrive at the truth, which is not possible framed, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is any
D D ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
unless the deposition of witnesses goes through the fire of
cross-examination. In a criminal case, using a statement of a offence triable under this Chapter. Therefore, ordinarily,
witness at the trial, without affording to the accused an when the evidence is offered under Section 244 Cr.P.C.
opportunity to cross-examine, is tantamount to condemning him by the prosecution, the Magistrate has to consider the
unheard. Life and liberty of an individual recognised as the same, and if he is convinced, the Magistrate can frame the
E E charge."
most valuable rights cannot be jeopardised leave alone taken
away without conceding to the accused the right to question
20. This Court further clarified that the expression "or at
those deposing against him from the witness box.
any previous stage of the case" appearing in Section 246(1)
18. Thirdly, because the right of cross-examination granted did not imply that a Magistrate can frame charges against an
to an accused under Sections 244 to 246 even before framing F F accused even before any evidence was led under Section 24.
of the charges does not, in the least, cause any prejudice to This Court approved the decision of the High Court of Bombay
the complainant or result in any failure of justice, while denial in Sambhaji Nagu Koli v. State of Maharashtra 1979 Cri LJ
of such a right is likely and indeed bound to prejudice the 390 (Bom), where the High Court has explained the purport of
accused in his defence. The fact that after the Court has found the expression "at any previous stage of the case". The said
a case justifying framing of charges against the accused, the G expression, declared this Court, only meant that the Magistrate
G
accused has a right to cross-examine the prosecution could frame a charge against the accused even before all the
witnesses under Section 246(4) does not necessarily mean that evidence which the prosecution proposed to adduce under
such a right cannot be conceded to the accused before the Section 244(1) was recorded and nothing more. This Court
charges are framed or that the Parliament intended to take observed:
away any such right at the pre-charge stage. H H "44. In Section 246 Cr.P.C. also, the phraseology is "if,
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 69 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
accused have the opportunity to hear the evidence adduced A A 19. We are supported in the view taken by us by the
against him, but also to defend himself by cross-examining the decision of this Court in Ajoy Kumar Ghose (supra). That was
witnesses with a view to showing that the witness is either a case where the trial Court had framed charges against the
unreliable or that a statement made by him does not have any accused without the prosecution having any evidence
evidentiary value or that it does not incriminate him. Section whatsoever in terms of Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. This Court
245 of the Code, as noticed earlier, empowers the Magistrate B B held that the procedure adopted by the trial Court was not
to discharge the accused if, upon taking of all the evidence correct because the language of Section 246(1) Cr.P.C. itself
referred to in Section 244, he considers that no case against sufficiently indicated that charges have to be framed against
the accused has been made out which may warrant his the accused on the basis of some evidence offered by the
conviction. Whether or not a case is made out against him, complainant at the stage of Section 244(1). This Court
can be decided only when the accused is allowed to cross- C C observed:
examine the witnesses for otherwise he may not be in a
position to demonstrate that no case is made out against him "The language of the Section clearly suggests that it is on
and thereby claim a discharge under Section 245 of the Code. the basis of the evidence offered by the complainant at the
It is elementary that the ultimate quest in any judicial stage of Section 244(1) Cr.P.C., that the charge is to be
determination is to arrive at the truth, which is not possible framed, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is any
D D ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
unless the deposition of witnesses goes through the fire of
cross-examination. In a criminal case, using a statement of a offence triable under this Chapter. Therefore, ordinarily,
witness at the trial, without affording to the accused an when the evidence is offered under Section 244 Cr.P.C.
opportunity to cross-examine, is tantamount to condemning him by the prosecution, the Magistrate has to consider the
unheard. Life and liberty of an individual recognised as the same, and if he is convinced, the Magistrate can frame the
E E charge."
most valuable rights cannot be jeopardised leave alone taken
away without conceding to the accused the right to question
20. This Court further clarified that the expression "or at
those deposing against him from the witness box.
any previous stage of the case" appearing in Section 246(1)
18. Thirdly, because the right of cross-examination granted did not imply that a Magistrate can frame charges against an
to an accused under Sections 244 to 246 even before framing F F accused even before any evidence was led under Section 24.
of the charges does not, in the least, cause any prejudice to This Court approved the decision of the High Court of Bombay
the complainant or result in any failure of justice, while denial in Sambhaji Nagu Koli v. State of Maharashtra 1979 Cri LJ
of such a right is likely and indeed bound to prejudice the 390 (Bom), where the High Court has explained the purport of
accused in his defence. The fact that after the Court has found the expression "at any previous stage of the case". The said
a case justifying framing of charges against the accused, the G expression, declared this Court, only meant that the Magistrate
G
accused has a right to cross-examine the prosecution could frame a charge against the accused even before all the
witnesses under Section 246(4) does not necessarily mean that evidence which the prosecution proposed to adduce under
such a right cannot be conceded to the accused before the Section 244(1) was recorded and nothing more. This Court
charges are framed or that the Parliament intended to take observed:
away any such right at the pre-charge stage. H H "44. In Section 246 Cr.P.C. also, the phraseology is "if,
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 71 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
when such evidence has been taken", meaning thereby, A A trial against him and that the denial of the right of cross-
a clear reference is made to Section 244 Cr.P.C. The examination under Section 244 would amount to denial of an
Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that the opportunity to the accused to show to the Magistrate that the
phraseology would, at the most, mean that the Magistrate allegations made against him were groundless and that there
may prefer to frame a charge, even before all the evidence was no reason for framing a charge against him. The following
is completed. The Bombay High Court, after considering B B passages are in this regard apposite:
the phraseology, came to the conclusion that the typical
clause did not permit the Magistrate to frame a charge, "18. This Court has already held that right to cross-
unless there was some evidence on record. For this, the examine the witnesses who are examined before framing
Learned Single Judge in that matter relied on the ruling in of the charge is a very precious right because it is only by
Abdul Nabi v. Gulam Murthuza Khan 1968 Cri LJ 303 cross-examination that the accused can show to the Court
C C that there is no need of a trial against him. It is to be seen
(AP)."
that before framing of the charge under Section 246, the
21. More importantly, this Court recognised the right of Magistrate has to form an opinion about there being
cross-examination as a salutary right to be exercised by the ground for presuming that the accused had committed
accused when witnesses are offered by the prosecution at the offence triable under the Chapter. If it is held that there is
stage of Section 244(1) of the Code and observed: D D no right of cross-examination under Section 244,. then the
accused would have no opportunity to show to the
"51. The right of cross-examination is a very salutary right Magistrate that the allegations are groundless and that
and the accused would have to be given an opportunity to there is no scope for framing a charge against him.
cross-examine the witnesses, who have been offered at
the stage of Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. The accused can E E xx xx xx
show, by way of the cross-examination, that there is no
justifiable ground against him for facing the trial and for that 20. Therefore, the situation is clear that under Section 244,
purpose, the prosecution would have to offer some Cr. P.C. the accused has a right to cross-examine the
evidence. While interpreting this Section, the prejudice witnesses and in the matter of Section 319, Cr.P.C. when
likely to be caused to the accused in his losing an a new accused is summoned, he would have similar right
F F to cross-examine the witness examined during the inquiry
opportunity to show to the Court that he is not liable to face
the trial on account of there being no evidence against him, afresh. Again, the witnesses would have to be re-heard
cannot be ignored." and then there would be such a right. Merely presenting
such witnesses for cross-examination would be of no
22. In Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. consequence."
(2010) 11 SCC 520, this Court reiterated the legal position G G
stated in Ajoy Kumar Ghose (supra) and held that the right of 23. In the light of what we have said above, we have no
an accused to cross-examine witnesses produced by the hesitation in holding that the High Court fell in palpable error in
prosecution before framing of a charge against him was a interfering with the order passed by the Revisional Court of
valuable right. It was only through cross-examination that the Sessions Judge, Gandhi Nagar. The High Court was
accused could show to the Court that there was no need for a H H particularly in error in holding that the appellant had an
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 71 72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
when such evidence has been taken", meaning thereby, A A trial against him and that the denial of the right of cross-
a clear reference is made to Section 244 Cr.P.C. The examination under Section 244 would amount to denial of an
Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that the opportunity to the accused to show to the Magistrate that the
phraseology would, at the most, mean that the Magistrate allegations made against him were groundless and that there
may prefer to frame a charge, even before all the evidence was no reason for framing a charge against him. The following
is completed. The Bombay High Court, after considering B B passages are in this regard apposite:
the phraseology, came to the conclusion that the typical
clause did not permit the Magistrate to frame a charge, "18. This Court has already held that right to cross-
unless there was some evidence on record. For this, the examine the witnesses who are examined before framing
Learned Single Judge in that matter relied on the ruling in of the charge is a very precious right because it is only by
Abdul Nabi v. Gulam Murthuza Khan 1968 Cri LJ 303 cross-examination that the accused can show to the Court
C C that there is no need of a trial against him. It is to be seen
(AP)."
that before framing of the charge under Section 246, the
21. More importantly, this Court recognised the right of Magistrate has to form an opinion about there being
cross-examination as a salutary right to be exercised by the ground for presuming that the accused had committed
accused when witnesses are offered by the prosecution at the offence triable under the Chapter. If it is held that there is
stage of Section 244(1) of the Code and observed: D D no right of cross-examination under Section 244,. then the
accused would have no opportunity to show to the
"51. The right of cross-examination is a very salutary right Magistrate that the allegations are groundless and that
and the accused would have to be given an opportunity to there is no scope for framing a charge against him.
cross-examine the witnesses, who have been offered at
the stage of Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. The accused can E E xx xx xx
show, by way of the cross-examination, that there is no
justifiable ground against him for facing the trial and for that 20. Therefore, the situation is clear that under Section 244,
purpose, the prosecution would have to offer some Cr. P.C. the accused has a right to cross-examine the
evidence. While interpreting this Section, the prejudice witnesses and in the matter of Section 319, Cr.P.C. when
likely to be caused to the accused in his losing an a new accused is summoned, he would have similar right
F F to cross-examine the witness examined during the inquiry
opportunity to show to the Court that he is not liable to face
the trial on account of there being no evidence against him, afresh. Again, the witnesses would have to be re-heard
cannot be ignored." and then there would be such a right. Merely presenting
such witnesses for cross-examination would be of no
22. In Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. consequence."
(2010) 11 SCC 520, this Court reiterated the legal position G G
stated in Ajoy Kumar Ghose (supra) and held that the right of 23. In the light of what we have said above, we have no
an accused to cross-examine witnesses produced by the hesitation in holding that the High Court fell in palpable error in
prosecution before framing of a charge against him was a interfering with the order passed by the Revisional Court of
valuable right. It was only through cross-examination that the Sessions Judge, Gandhi Nagar. The High Court was
accused could show to the Court that there was no need for a H H particularly in error in holding that the appellant had an
SUNIL MEHTA & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 73 [2013] 2 S.C.R. 74
ANR. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or that he had not A A THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD.
availed of the said opportunity when the witnesses were v.
examined at the stage of proceedings under Chapter XV of the NANAK BUILDERS & INVESTORS P. LTD. & ORS.
Code. The High Court, it is obvious, has failed to approach (Civil Appeal No. 1518 of 2013)
the issue from the correct perspective while passing the
FEBRUARY 21, 2013
impugned order. B B
[T.S. THAKUR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]
24. In the result we allow this appeal with costs assessed
at Rs.50,000/-, set aside the order passed by the High Court
and restore that passed by the Sessions Judge. The costs shall Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
be deposited by respondent No.2-company in the SCBA O. 1, r.10, O.22, r.10 – Suit for specific performance of
C C
Lawyers' Welfare Fund within two weeks of the pronouncement contract – During pendency of the suit defendant transferring
of this order. the property – Application by appellant-transferee for
R.P. Appeal allowed. impleadment as defendant – HELD: Appellant entered into
a clandestine transaction with the defendants and got the
D property transferred in its favour – Therefore, the appellant
cannot be held to be a bonafide purchaser, without notice – It
is true that the application which the appellant made was only
under O. I r.10 CPC but the enabling provision of O.22, r. 10
CPC could always be invoked if the fact situation so
demanded – In the facts and circumstances of the case and
E
also for the ends of justice, the appellant is to be added as
party-defendant in the suit –Specific Relief Act, 1963– s. 19
– Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis
pendens.
F The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed a suit on 1.11.1991
against the defendants-respondents for specific
performance of the agreement dated 29.5.1986,
whereunder the defendants had agreed to sell the suit
property to the plaintiff-respondent no. 1. Appearance
G was put on behalf of the defendants and on the basis of
the statement made on their behalf court on 4.11.1991
passed an interim order not to alienate the suit property.
However, between 31.1.2001 and 3.4.2001 five sale deeds
were executed by the defendants in favour of the
H 74