Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) Learned Special Judge failed to undertake the exercise of sifting and weighing the materials on record while deciding the applications filed by the petitioners under sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SATISH MEHRA vs. STATE (NCT of DELHI) & Others (2012)13 SCC 614 and L.KRISHNA REDDY vs. STATE by Station House Officer & Others (2014)14 SCC 401, the power under section 239 Cr.P.C. are wider than section 227 Cr.P.C. and therefore, failure to analyze the evidence and to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case has vitiated the impugned orders.

(vii) Learned Special Judge has failed to follow the procedure contemplated under section 239 Cr.P.C. at the time of hearing before charge. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Smt.J.UMADEVI & Another vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, By Indiranagar Police, ILR 2013 Karnataka 4471, the accused ought to have been given an opportunity of examining themselves in support of the grounds for discharge.

(viii) In support of these contentions, learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the following authorities:-

29. What is meant by the expression "making such examination, if any, of the accused" as employed in Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been explained by this Court in K.D.APPACHU vs. STATE OF MYSORE, AIR 1962 MYSORE 167, as under:

"The examination, if any, of the accused under the provisions of this section must necessarily be with regard to the material against him in the documents referred to in Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the answers given by him during such examination explaining those documents, can, at the most, be the material on which a Magistrate can discharge the accused against him."

In the instant case, no such unimpeachable documents are produced by the petitioners which could outweigh and overrule the view taken by the learned Magistrate / Special Judge in framing charges against the petitioners without recording the evidence.

32. From the above, it is clear that the expression "examination of the accused" as envisaged in section 239 Cr.P.C., relates only to examination of the accused with regard to the documents produced along with the final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. The said section does not contemplate an opportunity of adducing evidence to the accused as sought to be contended by learned counsel for petitioners. Even otherwise, the section does not confer any right on the accused either to examine him or to produce any documents or evidence at the stage of framing the charge, though the said section invests power on the court to examine the accused if the court finds that the examination of the accused is necessary for the purpose of elucidating the material produced along with the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Section 239 Cr.P.C. does not envisage any application by the accused. Any such requisition or application filed by the accused seeking leave to examine him in terms of section 239 Cr.P.C. would be only to persuade the court to hear him with regard to the documents produced by the prosecution and not to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead evidence to counter the documents or the statements relied on by the prosecution. As already discussed above, such a course would run counter to the scheme of the Code and would defeat the very object of the criminal trial, as such, I do not find any merit in the contention urged by learned counsel for petitioners that on account of the non-examination of the petitioners / accused, the impugned orders of framing charge are vitiated. Reg. Point No.2: