ORDER: Crl.O.P.No.17321 of 2005: The petitioner is the sixth accused facing trial in S.C.No.7 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Chennai at Poonamallee for offence punishable under Secs.307, 452, 506(ii)I.P.C., read with 109 I.P.C., and Sec.6 of Explosive Substances Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in the said case may be set out briefly as under: (a) On 7.6.2001 the Sub-Inspector of police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station was on patrol duty along with HC.87, Raveendran and the driver PC 16390, Sekar and when they were proceeding in the patrol vehicle at about 22.30 hrs, they received a message from the Police Control Room that there was some disturbance at No.7, Muthuram Street, Mylapore. They rushed to the spot and found that there was some scuffle between the house owner - Premchand and 4 other persons, on account of dispute between the said Premchand, and the petitioner herein, with regard to the sale of plot at Mandaveli Market. (b) The Sub-Inspector of Police enquired the persons available at the place of occurrence. At that time, two of the accused rushed out of the house of the said Premchand and hurled the bomb, which exploded with a loud noise and heavy smoke came out. Taking advantage of the smoke, they tried to escape from the spot and immediately Sub-Inspector of Police along with the Head Constable and the driver and other people apprehended one of the persons viz., Jagan alias Jagadeesan and the other 3 persons escaped from the scene of occurrence. (c) Because of the explosion of the bomb, the Sub-Inspector of Police sustained injuries on his right hand, right thigh and right side of his hip. The Head Constable sustained injuries at his left eye-brow and left thigh. On receipt of a report about the above occurrence, a case was registered in Crl.No.1139 of 2001 on the file of the said police station under Secs.448, 307, 332 and 506(h), I.P.C., and Sec.3(1) of the Indian Explosives Act. (d) Thereafter, the said crime was investigated and ultimately a final report was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 5 under Secs.120-B, 452, 307, 332, 506(ii) I.P.C., and Sec.3 of Explosive substance Act and under Secs.307, 452, 506(ii) I.P.C., read with 109 I.P.C., and Sec.6 of Explosive Substances Act against 6th accused, petitioner herein. (d) Thereafter, the said crime was investigated and ultimately a final report was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 5 under Secs.120-B, 452, 307, 332, 506(ii) I.P.C., and Sec.3 of Explosive substance Act and under Secs.307, 452, 506(ii) I.P.C., read with 109 I.P.C., and Sec.6 of Explosive Substances Act against 6th accused, petitioner herein. Similarly A-7 was charged for the offence punishable under Secs.120(B), 452, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and Sec.4(a) of Explosives Substance Act. Sanction to prosecute the case was obtained by the respondents on 27.2.2003 from the District Collector. 3. The petitioner herein sent representations to the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mylapore and others making his representations that since he is innocent and the case against him was foisted on account of personal animosity between him and one Premchand, he has requested the authorities to peruse the records produced by him and to pass necessary orders. As, there was no reply from the authorities to whom he has sent the representations, he has come forward with this criminal original petition in Crl.O.P.No.17321 of 2005 for necessary direction from this Court to the respondents to produce the records before the Additional Sessions Court for exclusive trial of bomb blast cases, Chennai, at Poonamallee, on the basis of his representations dated 28.7.2003, 5.8.2003 and 12.8.2003. 4.Crl.M.P.No.8462 of 2005: The intervener 3rd party the said Premchand has filed the above miscellaneous petition in the said Criminal Original Petition to implead him as an aggrieved person in the said Criminal Original Petition. 5. The averments in the intervener’s petition may be set out briefly as under: (a) There is a civil dispute with regard to the Mandaveli Market property between the petitioner, who has been cited as fourth witness in the said case i.e., in S.C.No.7 of 2004, and the first respondent who is the sixth accused therein. On 7.6.2001 at the instance of the first respondent, some rowdy elements entered into petitioner’s house with deadly weapons at about 9.40 p.m. and attempted to kill him. As soon as the message was given to the Police Control Room, the patrolling party came to the spot immediately and while the accused persons attempted to escape by throwing bombs on the police officials, one Sub-Inspector of police and one Head Constable were injured in the occurrence. As soon as the message was given to the Police Control Room, the patrolling party came to the spot immediately and while the accused persons attempted to escape by throwing bombs on the police officials, one Sub-Inspector of police and one Head Constable were injured in the occurrence. One of the assailants was caught red handed. The Sub-Inspector of Police himself lodged a complaint in the Mylapore Police Station and a crime was registered in E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai in Crime No.1139 of 2001 under Secs.307, 448, 332 and 506(h) I.P.C., read with Sec.3(1) of Indian Explosives Act. (b) The first respondent has been protracting the proceedings one way or the other so as to prevent the police from filing the final report. Therefore the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.4780 of 2003 for speedy trial of the said case in the trial Court and this Court by its order dated 20.2.2003 had given necessary direction to the respondent police to lay the charge-sheet within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order. (c) The Collector, Chennai accorded sanction to prosecute 7 persons under Sec.3(1) of the Indian Explosives Act and thereafter the respondent Police filed the final report in the said case. Again the respondent was dragging on the proceedings and thereupon the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.19569 of 2004 before this Court for necessary direction to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate to commit the proceedings to the Court of Sessions and therefore this Court by its Order dated 8.6.2004 directed the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet to commit the proceedings within 2 months from the date of the order. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Special Court which had taken the same on file as S.C.No.7 of 2004. (d) The first respondent has filed another petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.29340 of 2004 to transfer the case to any one of the Sessions Court at Chennai on the ground of Jurisdiction and since the petitioner has filed counter in the proceedings and objected to the grant of relief, this Court dismissed the same. Though the first respondent filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court against the said order in S.L.P.(Crl.)No.947 of 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed the same by its order dated 25.4.2004. Though the first respondent filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court against the said order in S.L.P.(Crl.)No.947 of 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed the same by its order dated 25.4.2004. (e) The first respondent has once again filed the above mentioned Criminal Original Petitions by suppressing the earlier proceedings and orders passed by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. Therefore the petitions filed by the first respondent is neither maintainable by law nor on facts. Therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard Mr.A.Raghunathan learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions and for the first respondent in Crl.M.P.No.8462 of 2005 as well as Thiru G.M.Syed Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner/intervener in Crl.M.P.No.8462 of 2005 and Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent in the said criminal original petitions as well as respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.P.No.8462 of 2005. 7. The parties to these proceedings may be referred to hereunder as they are arrayed in the said criminal original petitions and the third party who has filed the intervener application may be referred to hereunder as an intervener. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.6 has submitted the following: The petitioner had originally filed the petition seeking for an issuance of a writ of Mandamus in W.P.No.556 of 2005 and this Court directed the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before this Court on the Criminal side and thereupon he has filed the present criminal original petition praying for the necessary reliefs. It is alleged that in the occurrence which took place on 7.6.2001, injuries were caused to the Sub-Inspector of Police and Head Constable of Mylapore Police Station and thereupon a crime was registered in Crl.No.1139 of 2001 by the second respondent against this petitioner and others. 9. According to the intervener, he purchased Mandaveli Market from one Janakiah Chetty in 1995 and subsequently sold by him to the petitioner on receipt of Rs.52 lakhs as advance and the balance of Rs.119 lakhs is payable by the petitioner to the intervener. 10. The case of the prosecution is that in order to avoid payment of the balance of sale consideration, the petitioner contracted hirelings to attack the intervener and in the occurrence bomb was hurled and the police people were injured. 11. 10. The case of the prosecution is that in order to avoid payment of the balance of sale consideration, the petitioner contracted hirelings to attack the intervener and in the occurrence bomb was hurled and the police people were injured. 11. In the above circumstances it is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner handed over a set of documents to the first respondent, the Commissioner of Police, to prove that the intervener did not have any vested right in the Mandaveli Market, but the first respondent did not take into account the documents submitted by him. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.21268 of 2003 before this Court for a direction to the Collector, Chennai, to take into consideration the documents given to the first respondent, Commissioner of Police before sanction was accorded under the Explosives Act against the petitioner. 12. The documents are vital in nature and that if the same are taken into account, it will be seen that the intervener had no right to the Mandaveli Market property and that therefore the occurrence could not have taken place as alleged by the prosecution. 13. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit in his argument as under: The case against the petitioner who is the sixth accused and other accused was registered under Secs.448, 307, 332 and 506(ii) I.P.C., and Sec.3(1) of Indian Explosives Substance Act on account of the occurrence in and by which the accused had thrown the bomb on the police officials and injured one Sub-Inspector of Police and another constable and therefore during the investigation, materials were gathered by the second respondent to substantiate the charges under the said provisions of law. In the above circumstances, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are not relevant as they are not relied on by the prosecution side, so as to frame the charge against the accused in the case. Hence, the petitions preferred by the petitioner are not sustainable in law. 14. In the above circumstances, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are not relevant as they are not relied on by the prosecution side, so as to frame the charge against the accused in the case. Hence, the petitions preferred by the petitioner are not sustainable in law. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the nature of documents relied on by him so as to impress upon this Court that they are essential in the facts and circumstances of the case to frame appropriate charges and that if the said documents are made available before the Court below, the petitioner will certainly be exonerated from the charges levelled against him by the prosecution. 15. In answer to such contention the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions under Secs.227 and 228 of Crl.P.C., in support of his further contention that the trial Court "if, upon consideration of the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith will have to hear both sides and proceed to frame charges against the accused and that if, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he has to be discharged from the charges. It is in these circumstances, he would contend that the petitioner who is the sixth accused in the said case cannot be permitted to produce any document at the time of framing of the charges. Thus it would be appropriate to extract the provision under Secs.227 and 228 of Crl.P.C., as under: Sec.227 of Crl.P.C.: Discharge - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for the proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Sec.228 of Crl.P.C.: Framing of charge: (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which: (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report: (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under Clause (b) of Sub-sec.(1), the Charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence or claims to be tried." 16. Further the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) as well as learned counsel for the intervener placed reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nathpadhi,2005 S.C.C.(Crl.) 359, in support of the proposition of law that the trial Court cannot consider any material produced by the accused at the time of framing of charges. The relevant ratio laid down (vide) para. 18 in the said decision reads as under: "Further at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence..........................It is in this light that the provision about hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Sec.227 is to be understood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression ‘hearing the submissions of the accused’ cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the state of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police." 17. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has however placed reliance on the para.29 of the same judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court and contended that if the accused produced material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the trial Court can look into the same in the interest of justice as per criteria laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case, 1992 S.C.C.(Crl.) 426. The relevant para. 29 may be extracted here under to appreciate the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner. "29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Sec.482 of the Code and Art.226 of Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case,1992 S.C.C.(Crl.) 426." 18.Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) as well as the learned counsel for the intervener have argued in my opinion rightly that the Apex Court referred to the argument put forth on behalf of the accused in that case and laid down the law that within the parameters specified in Bhajan Lal’s Case(1992 S.C.C.(Crl.) 426, the High Court has got inherent powers under Sec.482, Crl.P.C., and Art.226 of the Constitution of India to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, they have contended that in this case there is not even one circumstance pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that there has been abuse of the process of any Court or that any grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner. Therefore, they have contended that in this case there is not even one circumstance pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that there has been abuse of the process of any Court or that any grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner. Further they have also pointed out with reference to the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner that the same may be produced at the time of trial by the petitioner when opportunity is afforded to him in that regard and hence it is urged by them that the contention of the petitioner based on the observation in para.29 in the said decision cannot be countenanced in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. 19. Further learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has narrated the genesis of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. A careful reading of the said decision discloses that while the question whether the trial Court at the time of framing of charges is entitled to consider material filed by the accused arose for consideration before two Judges Bench, the same was referred for consideration by a larger Bench in view of the earlier decision rendered by the two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, (1996)9 S.C.C. 766 . Hence, after considering various decisions on this aspect of the matter, the Honourable Supreme Court concluded in para.23 as follows: “23. As a result of aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. Satish Mehra’s case holding that the trial Court has powers to consider even material which accused may produce at the stage of Sec.227 of the Code has not been correctly decided.” 20. As has been pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) in view of the said decision rendered by the Apex Court, earlier decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohanlal Soni, 2000 Crl.L.J. 3504, rendered by relaying on Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, (1996)9 S.C.C. 766 , cannot also be of any help to the petitioner in this case. It follows that the respondents are well within their legal bounds to rely on the materials gathered during the investigation and filed before the trial Court and to advance their submission at the time of framing of the charge. As referred to above this Court is of the considered view, that in views of the provision under Sec.227, Crl.P.C., and in the light of the decision cited supra, the petitioner who is the 6th accused in the said case is entitled to put forth his submission only with reference to the documents relied on by the prosecution at the time of framing of the charges. 21. Having regard to factual aspects of the matter as narrated above and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he as a matter of right, is entitled to press into service at the time of framing of charges, the documents mentioned in the representations made by him to the respondent and other authorities on various occasions. Further he will be at liberty to produce the same at the time of trial, if so advised and therefore finding no merit of acceptance the above criminal original petitions filed by the petitioner herein is liable to be closed. However in view of the facts of the case as narrated above, this Court finds that heinous offence had been committed as a result of which police personnel sustained injuries and therefore it is needless to say that early disposal of the said case by the Court below is absolutely essential. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the said case after trial on merits and in accordance with law within 6 months from the date of production of a copy of this order. 22.Crl.O.P.No.17321 of 2005 and Crl.M.P.No.4980 of 2005: This criminal original petition is closed with the direction as indicated above in this order. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is also closed. 23.Crl.O.P.No.33169 of 2005 and Crl.M.P.No.9391 of 2005: This criminal original petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to work out his rights before the trial Court in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is closed. 24.Crl.M.P.No.8462 of 2005 (intervening application): In view of the orders passed in Crl.O.P.Nos.17321 and 33169 of 2005 this petition is closed.