Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 146 (MAN)

R. K. Ibungosana Singh v. Satrughan Kumar

2014-12-19

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Brojendro, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.I. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present Cril. revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.2.2012 passed in Special Trial (C) Case No. 23 of 2011, by which the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance (ND & PS) Manipur discharged the respondent accused from the case. 3. The facts in brief for the purpose of considering this revision petition may be stated as below. That on 16.5.2011 the personnel of 31 Assam Rifles at Khudengthabi, Moreh, handed over 206000 Actinad Tablets to the office of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Regional Unit, ISKON Complex, Imphal, in presence of the witnesses without the owner of the goods for further investigation of the case. As per the complaint filed by the Assam Rifles, the said Actinad tablets packed in two packs were recovered from an unoccupied house at Seijang Village, Chandel District, Manipur. On examination of the said tablets, the batch number and date of manufacture of the tablets were ascertained and it was found that these were manufactured by M/s. Nikvin Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd., Baddi-Baro, Tiwals Road, Behind Govt. Timber Depot, Village-Katha, Baddi (H.P.). Since the said tablets were found to contain pseudo ephedrine which is a controlled substance, a criminal investigation was initiated by registering Case No. 19/4/NCB/IMP/Actinad/UCLO/2011 dated 16.5.2011 u/s 9-A, 25-A, 29 & 60 of the N.D. & P.S. Act. On further investigation, it was ascertained that the said Actinad Tablets were purchased from the said company by a local firm known as “Yasodha Traders”, located at Khuyathong Road, Thangal Bazar, Imphal. After ascertaining the proprietor of the said Yasodha Traders, who is the present respondent, he was arrested on 19.7.2011 in presence of witnesses. It has been stated that on investigation, the respondent admitted that he is the proprietor of the “Yasodha Traders” and possessed drug licence issued by the Medical Directorate, Government of Manipur, and purchased the said consignment of Actinad Tablets from the manufacturer, M/s. Nikvin Healthcare (Pvt) Ltd. He also admitted that he had supplied these tablets to some unknown persons without knowing the provisions of the N.D. & P.S. Act and N.D. & P.S. (Regulation of Controlled Substance Order 1993). The investigating authority got the said seized tablets analysed from the Forensic Science Laboratory at Pangei, which confirmed that these tablets tested positive for pseudo ephedrine, which is a controlled substance. Accordingly, a Complaint Case was filed before the Special Court, (ND & PS) Manipur under Section 9-A, 25-A, 29 & 60 of the N.D. & P.S. Act, 1985 on 25.10.2011 which was later on registered as Special Trial (C) Case No. 23 of 2011. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted supported by the chemical analysis report, inventory of the goods, statement made by the respondent and another witnesses and other related documents/evidences. At the time of considering of the charge filed against the respondent, the Special Judge considered whether prima facie case had been made out against the respondent as regards the findings under Section 25-A of the N.D. & P.S. Act or whether respondent had abetted and conspired as provided under Section 29 or whether he was liable under Section 60 of the N.D. & P.S. Act. 4. On consideration of the charge sheet and materials submitted by the investigating agency, the Special Judge held that there is no iota of material to link the said seized Actinad tablets to the accused and did not accept the case of the prosecution that since the batch number found in the seized Actinad tablets and those purchased by Yasodha Traders from the manufacturer bore the same number, the seized tablets belonged to the accused. The learned Judge took the view that the product with the same batch number could have been supplied by other agent or wholesaler other than M/s. Yasodha Traders and merely because the seized tables bears the same batch number with those which the accused received from the manufacturer, it could not be said that the seized tablets belonged to the respondent. The learned Special Judge held that it is only a presumptive material as the said seized tablets could have been supplied by other agents other than M/s. Yasodha Traders. The Special Judge also held that there is no iota of material to show that the accused or any person on behalf of M/s. Yasodha traders had transported the said tablets to the said unoccupied house at Seijang Village from where the tablets were seized. The Special Judge also held that there is no iota of material to show that the accused or any person on behalf of M/s. Yasodha traders had transported the said tablets to the said unoccupied house at Seijang Village from where the tablets were seized. Accordingly, the Special Judge held that the plea of the prosecution that that seized Actinad tablets belong to the accused is not supported by any iota of material so as to make out the presumption that the accused had committed the offence, as held in para 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced herein below. “20. I have considered and I find that, there is no iota of material to link that the seized Actinad tablets with the accused. The only material put forward by the prosecution is that the seized Actinad Tablets bearing batch No. 10433T and 10448T are the same Actinad Tablets received by the M/s. Yasodha Traders of which the accused is the Proprietor. This theory is based on the “batch No. “ appearing on the strip of Actinad Tablets. 21. Thus, the quest is to find out, what is “Batch No” as inscribed in the seized tablets. It is not a disputed fact that the reason for allotting a particular batch number to a particular product is for identifying quantity by volume/weight of the particular product manufactured or fabricated in single operation. Further, it is not necessary to supply a particular batch number of a particular product to a particular agent, wholesaler. The product with the same particular batch number can be supplied to the entire agent, wholesaler till the stock last. Hence, simply by stating that the seized Actinad Tablets bears batch No. 10433T and 10448T was the Actinad Tablets that the accused received from the manufacturer is only a presumptive material, because the seized Actinad Tablets could have been supplied by other agent or wholesaler other than M/S Yasodha Traders. Besides, there is no iota of material to show that the accused or any other person for or on behalf of M/S Yasodha Traders transported the said tablets to the said unoccupied house at Seijang Village. Besides, there is no iota of material to show that the accused or any other person for or on behalf of M/S Yasodha Traders transported the said tablets to the said unoccupied house at Seijang Village. Accordingly, the plea of the prosecution that the seized Actinad Tablets belong to the accused is not supported by any iota of material so as to make out presumption that there is ground that the accused has committed the offence, so as to conclude that there exists justifiably prima facie case against him.” 5. Thereafter, the Special Judge considered the prosecution witnesses and observed that none of the witnesses had stated that the seized Actinad tablets belong to the accused. Further it was observed that there was no Assam Rifles witness to testify the recovering the said Actinad Tablets from the unoccupied house at Seijang Village, and the personnel of 31 Assam Rifles never prepared the seizure memo which also did not indicate the date and time when the said tablets were seized and there is no witness or document to show that the seized Actinad Tablets were transported by the accused to the said unoccupied house and also the accused in his own voluntary statement recorded by the NCB had clearly stated that the Actinad Tablets were not related to him as he had already sold the same and he denied the ownership of the said Actinad Tablets. Thus, the learned Special Judge held that there is no material to link the accused to the seized Actinad Tablets, and accordingly, held that no prima facie case has been made out against the accused person as recorded in para 22 and 23 of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced herein below. “22. Now coming to the prosecution witnesses, eleven witnesses are being cited out of which two appears to be an independent witnesses who were present at the time when the accused was searched and arrested. However, search and arrest of the accused is not an issue in the case. The remaining witnesses are personnel of NCB, the investigating Agency, 31 Assam Rifles, who brought the Actinad Tablets to the NCB and Medical Directorate employee, who issued the Licence to the accused. 23. None of the witnesses states that the seized Actinad Tablaets belong to the accused. The remaining witnesses are personnel of NCB, the investigating Agency, 31 Assam Rifles, who brought the Actinad Tablets to the NCB and Medical Directorate employee, who issued the Licence to the accused. 23. None of the witnesses states that the seized Actinad Tablaets belong to the accused. Secondly, none of the witnesses saw the personnel of 31 Assam Rifles recovering the said Actinad Tablets from an unoccupied house at Seijang Village. Thirdly, the personnel of 31 Assam Rifles never prepared seizure memo. Fourthly, on which date and at what time the personnel of 31 Assam Rifles recovered the said Actinad Tablets is never shown in the investigation report nor is recorded in the statement of the witnesses, Fifthly, none of the witnesses or document shows that the seized Actinad Tablets were transported by the accused to the said unoccupied house and Sixthly, the accused in his voluntary statement recorded by the NCB also clearly states that the seized Actinad tablets is not directly related with him as he had already sold the same and that he deny the ownership of the seized Actinad Tablets. All the above relevant material facts are never revealed in the investigation nor its reason disclosed by the I.O. so as to link the accused with the seized Actinad Tablets. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that, I find no prima facie case of the alleged charges against the accused person is made out.” 6. After considering the materials relied on by the prosecution, the learned Special Judge proceeded to examine some documents which were produced by the respondent accused person before the Court. The learned Special Judge relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr. (1996) 9 SCC 766 and also of the Allahabad High Court in Vijitendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.: 2003 Cril LJ 4101 held that the Court was within the power to consider the materials which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, proceeded to consider the documents produced by the accused. The accused produced and filed copies of the licence under Form No. 21(b) bearing license No. 10/WS-IW/2004 in the name of M/S Yasodha Traders dated 16.12.2010 issued by the Licensing and Controlling Authority, Manipur and Certificate licence No. 5-X/DHS-2004 in Form No. 20-G dated 16.12.2010 which were not disputed by the prosecution. The accused produced and filed copies of the licence under Form No. 21(b) bearing license No. 10/WS-IW/2004 in the name of M/S Yasodha Traders dated 16.12.2010 issued by the Licensing and Controlling Authority, Manipur and Certificate licence No. 5-X/DHS-2004 in Form No. 20-G dated 16.12.2010 which were not disputed by the prosecution. The accused also filed copies of the Cash Bill No. 1065 for sale of tablet Actinad batch No. 10448 T 200 box to M/s. Samad Medical Store, Moreh, Licence No. 3-X/DHS-2008 in Form 20 F of M/S Samad Medical Store renewed upto 31.12.2012, copies of the Cash Bill No. 1062, 1078, 1054, 1049, 1045, 1041 for sale of tablet Actinad to M/S Azad Pharmacy, Masjit Road along with a copy of the licence No. 21/QP/90 issued by Licensing and Controlling Authority, Manipur of M/S Azad Pharmacy and copies of the consignment notes, wherein the consigner and consignee put their respective signatures. On the basis of the aforesaid documents the Special Judge held that the accused is a licensed wholesaler and he under proper licence purchased the said drugs from Nikvin Health Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. in Himachal Pradesh under retail invoice and the accused after proper formal clearance brought the said drugs to Imphal and later sold some of the Actinad tablets to M/S Samad Medical Store and M/s. Azad pharmacy under proper documentation. 7. The learned Special Judge further proceeded to examine the I.O.'s investigation report and observed that the I.O. never checked the stock of the M/s. Yasodha Traders. It was observed that had the stock been properly examined, the I.O. would have come to know the purchase of the tablets from M/S Yasodha Tablets. However, for reasons best known to the I.O., these two purchasers were not disclosed, though these facts link the tablets to the accused. The Special Judge also noted that the accused person had already submitted all the documents which were filed in the Court to the I.O. during investigation. However, the I.O. never disclosed these documents nor gave any investigation findings. 8. The learned Special Judge also observed that nothing has been mentioned as to whom the unoccupied house belongs to, by accepting the version of the Assam Rifles as gospel truth. However, the I.O. never disclosed these documents nor gave any investigation findings. 8. The learned Special Judge also observed that nothing has been mentioned as to whom the unoccupied house belongs to, by accepting the version of the Assam Rifles as gospel truth. The learned Special Judge also observed that the prosecution has specifically charged the accused that the accused has violated the use of controlled substance in the production or manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance for medical or scientific purpose as provided under section 8(c), 9-A of the N.D. & P.S. Act. However, the prosecution case against the accused is not regarding production or manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance for medical or scientific purpose. It was observed that had it been an issue of production or manufacture of drugs, the same would revolve around Drugs and Cosmetic Act. Besides, it is also not a case of the accused of not having licence as wholesaler. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge, considering the facts and circumstance of the prosecution and the documents produced and relied on by the accused person held that no prima facie case has been made out for the charge against the accused. The accused respondent was accordingly discharged from the case and all the connected bonds were also cancelled. 9. Mr. Brojendro, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds in challenging the impugned order, of which, the following may be noted. (i) It has been submitted that sub-section 1 of Section 35 of the N.D. & P.S. Act provides that when prosecution of an offence under this Act requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state and it shall be the defence for the accused to prove that fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. It has been stated that the respondent accused admitted in his statement before the Investigating Authority that he sold tablets to an unknown person who came to collect it in the name of M/s. Azad Pharma and M/s. Sampad Store, claiming to have valid licences, but could not produce the relevant document, which itself was sufficient to frame charge against the respondent accused. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the statement made by the accused before the Investigating Officer on 19.7.2011 which is reproduced herein below. “I, Shri Satughan Kumar (about 33 yrs) s/o Raghunath Sah, give my voluntary statement as depose by me. I have been explained about the provision of N.D.P.S. Act, 1995 and told that giving false statement in an enquiry proceeding is liable to be punished under the law. On being asked, I say that I am the proprietor of M/s. Yasodha Traders with drug licence No. 9/WS-IW/2004 which was issued to me by Medical Directorate, Manipur. On being asked I say that I used to buy medicine from M/s. Kikvin healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. Baddi H.P. Further on being asked, I say that the Actinad Tablets which was seized by NCB, Imphal on 16.5.11 with batch No. 10433T and 1048T, Mfg.Aapr 2011. Exp. March, 2013 is not directly related with me as I have already sold. I further say that though I received the same Batch No. as stated above. I have sold it to a person not known to me who came to collect the said Actinad Tablets by the name of M/s. Azad Pharma at Imphal and M/S Samad Store at Moreh having proper Drug Licence. On being asked, I say that I deny the ownership of the said seized Tablets, on being asked. I say that I have seen the Retail invoice shown to me and it is the same Tablets bought by me. On being asked, I say that I could not produce relevant documents as is required under N.D.P.S. (Rule of Controlled Substance) Order, 1993 and further state that I have no knowledge as to whom the said Actinad Tablets has been sold by both the firm,”. Therefore, the statement made by the accused before the Court to the fact that he sold it to a person not known to him and that he could not produce the relevant documents as is required under the rules could not be brushed aside by the Court. Therefore, the statement made by the accused before the Court to the fact that he sold it to a person not known to him and that he could not produce the relevant documents as is required under the rules could not be brushed aside by the Court. (ii) It has been also contended that the learned Special Judge heavily relied on the documents produced by the accused at the time of charge hearing to discharge him from the case which is not permissible in law as there is no provision under the Cr.P.C. to entertain documents produced by the accused for his defence at the time of charge hearing unless these documents are seized by the Investigating Agency at the time of arrest of the respondent or during investigation. (iii) It has been also submitted that sufficient materials have been collected by the investigating agency to prove conclusively the charge against the accused and accordingly, it has been submitted that the impugned order suffers from gross irregularity and illegality and cannot be sustained. 10. Mr. M.I. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has raised certain preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of this criminal revision. It has been submitted that Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. debars exercise of power of revision by the High Court in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. It has been contended that if there is such a bar, provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not have been invoked. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohit alia Sonu & Anr v. State of U.P & Anr, 2013 Legal Eagle SCC 717 decided on 1.7.2013. 11. This Court would proceed to deal with the preliminary objection first. As clearly mentioned in Section 397(2)Cr.P.C. the power of revision cannot be exercised in relation to any “interlocutory order”. In the present case, the order passed by the learned Special Judge, ND & PS, under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be an “interlocutory order” inasmuch as, by the impugned order, the right of the accused has been finally and substantially decided. If the said impugned order is to be upheld, the respondent cannot be proceeded further with the trial and he will be deemed to be innocent. If the said impugned order is to be upheld, the respondent cannot be proceeded further with the trial and he will be deemed to be innocent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned order cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction of this Court. However, merely because the petitioner has also invoked the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be a ground for rejection of this application which has raised a very important issue as regards the admissibility and consideration of evidence produced by the accused at the time of charge hearing under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. It is well settled that the amplitude of inherent power prescribed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be restricted by any provisions either under Section 397 or any provision of the Cr.P.C. 12. As discussed above, the main issue which has been raised in this revision petition pertains to the admissibility and consideration of documents produced by the accused at the time of charge consideration and hearing under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of consideration by the Court that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is now well settled under our criminal jurisprudence that normally a criminal proceeding is initiated either on a complaint filed before the Police (except for a complaint case before the Court), whereupon an investigation is initiated against the accused for alleged violation of the penal laws and on conclusion of the investigation, the investigating agency submits the findings of the investigation before the Court supported by evidence collected in course of the investigation for the purpose of prosecution. In respect of case triable before he Court of Sessions, the accused appears or is brought before the Court of Sessions in pursuance of commitment of the case and the prosecution opens the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and the set of evidence with which the prosecution proposes to prove the guilt of the accused as provided under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. On such presentation by the prosecutor and upon hearing the submission on behalf of the prosecution and the accused and on consideration of the records of the case and documents submitted therewith, the Court, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused can discharge the accused as provided under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. If, after such consideration and hearing, the Court is of the opinion that there is ground for framing charge that the accused has committed an offence, the Court may frame charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. if the same is triable by the Court of Sessions and thereafter trial would proceed. The provision under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. which provides for discharge of the accused has been inserted by the legislature to deal with a situation where a person/the accused may not have to undergo a prolonged process of trial, merely on the basis of the investigation made, if the Court finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. This provision under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Supreme Court on earlier occasions and the Supreme Court laid down certain principles as regards the exercise of this power under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging the accused. It has been held that the Court need not critically examine the documents submitted by the prosecution but can shift and weigh the materials only for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is sufficient evidence for proceeding for trial. It has been emphasised that the normal standard of proof adhered to at the time of trial stage is not to be applied at this stage and the scope of consideration is only to find out whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not. It has been emphasised that the normal standard of proof adhered to at the time of trial stage is not to be applied at this stage and the scope of consideration is only to find out whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not. The Court has to normally accept the material put forward by the prosecution to reach to a prima facie satisfaction and to examine whether the materials disclose grave suspicion against the accused of having committed the crime. It has been, however, cautioned that the Court should not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if the Court is conducting the trial. The Court cannot also examine the admissibility or credibility of the evidence so sought to be adduced at this stage, but if it is found that the evidence which the prosecution proposes to place as proof of guilt of the accused even if fully accepted cannot show that the accused had committed the offence, accused should be discharged. All these principles have to be kept in mind at the time of consideration of the records of the case and documents submitted by the prosecution. However, a situation may arise when the accused seeks to produce documents/materials hitherto not examined by the investigating agency or not brought to the notice of the investigating agency earlier, which the accused seeks to produce at the time of hearing and consideration under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. to show that there is sufficient ground for not proceeding against the accused. 13. In this connection, it has been held earlier by the Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr: (1996) 9 SCC 766 that the Court of Session may be within its power to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. It has been held in Satish Mehra case (supra) that there is nothing in the Code which shrinks the scope of audience to oral arguments only and held that if the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the Court at that stage. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the “ground” as mentioned in Section227 Cr.P.C. can include any valid ground including insufficiency to prove the charge, which may be produced at the time of consideration under Section 227 Cr.P.C. as observed in para 14 in Satish Mehra (supra). “14. The object of providing such an opportunity as is envisaged in Section 227 of the Code is to enable the Court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the case ends there it gains a lot of time of the Court and saves much human efforts and cost. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the Court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. Hence, we are of the view that Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider even material which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Code.” 14. However, this principle has been re-considered and overruled in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi : AIR 2005 SC 359 . The issue whether the trial Court at the time of framing of charge could consider material filed by the accused, has been specifically considered and decided by a larger three Judges Bench in the aforesaid case of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra). The Supreme Court observed in the said case that at the time of framing of charge, the Trial Court is to consider only the materials placed before it by the investigating agency contrary to what had been observed in Satish Mehra case (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) extensively dealt with the provision of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. which was enacted to eliminate harassment to the accused person when the evidentiary materials gathered after investigation fall short of minimum legal requirement. Thus, if the evidence, even if fully accepted would show that the accused could not have committed the crime, the accused deserves to be discharged. However, the Supreme Court after considering various decisions in this regard held that permitting the accused to adduce his evidence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage is against the criminal jurisprudence. However, the Supreme Court after considering various decisions in this regard held that permitting the accused to adduce his evidence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage is against the criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court held that the accused would not be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such plea at the stage of framing of charge. 15. The Supreme Court held that it was not the intention of the law that the accused would be entitled to produce materials and document in proof of such plea of innocence at the stage of framing of charge. The Court held that hearing the submission of accused as provided by Section 227 of the Code means hearing the submission of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. It was held that the expression “hearing submission of the accused” cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby change the law. It was held that at the stage of framing of charge hearing, the submission of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the Police and accordingly disagreed with the finding of the Court in Satish Mehra case (supra). In this regard para 18 and 23 of the judgment in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) will be of relevance. “18. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The reliance on Articles 14 and 21 is misplaced. The scheme of the Code and object with which Section 227 was incorporated and Sections 207 and 207(A) omitted have already been noticed. 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. 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. By way of illustration, it may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may have to be examined at the stage of framing of charge if the contention of the accused is accepted despite the well settled proposition that it is for the accused to lead evidence at the trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of the charge, in case we accept the contention put forth on behalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well settled for over one hundred years now. It is in this light that the provision about hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 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. 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. 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 materials which accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. 16. Satish Mehra's case holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. 16. As regards the contention raised that there could be situations where the accused would be in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality to shift the guilt which would demolish the very foundation of the prosecution case and in such event the denial to production of document may lead to grave injustice, the Court observed that in such a situation, the High Court can be approached under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as well under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of process by any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, has held in para 29 in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) as reproduced herein below. “29. Regarding the argument of 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 Section 482 of the Code and Article 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. 17. Therefore the law is now well settled in view of the decision in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) that the Court cannot consider documents produced at the time of charge consideration under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of considering discharge of the accused. In other words, at the time of consideration under Section 227 Cr.P.C. the Court has to look only to the records, documents so submitted by the prosecution and cannot take into consideration any document filed by the accused. 18. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) the contention of Mr. N. Brojendro, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below had erred in taking into consideration the materials filed by the accused respondent at the time of hearing under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has substance and deserves acceptance. 19. 18. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) the contention of Mr. N. Brojendro, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below had erred in taking into consideration the materials filed by the accused respondent at the time of hearing under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has substance and deserves acceptance. 19. Otherwise also, what has been observed by this Court is that the respondent accused had produced only the true copies of the documents and not the original documents for consideration by the Court. It has been also seen that some of the documents are overwritten, more particularly, in respect of the bill bearing No. 1065 with consignment note dated 12.5.2011, Bill No. 1045 with consignment note dated 30.4.2011, Bill No. 1041 with consignment note dated 29.4.2011. This Court fails to understand how the Court below ignored such over-writings and accepted these documents as admissible and genuine to form the basis for discharge of the accused. Further, there is another discrepancy in the Bill No. 1062 issued by the respondent Firm in favour of M/s. Azad Pharmacy which is dated 17.6.2006 with corresponding consignment note dated 17.6.2011. This Court does not understand how a bill dated 17.6.2006 could have been used in the consignment note dated 17.6.2011. Further, certain assessment orders in respect of the respondent firm have been enclosed and these two orders are all dated 15.3.2011. One fails to understand how assessment orders signed on 15.3.2011 can be relevant for a case which was dealing with the seizure of tablets on a later date on 16.5.2011. Apart from the discrepancies in the said documents, the Court is to first decide on the admissibility and proof of the documents before they could be relied as evidences. This Court fails to understand how these documents could have been relied on by the Special Judge, for the purpose of discharging the respondent without proving those documents. Therefore, apart from the issue of the permissibility of considering the documents filed by the accused at the time of charge consideration under Section 227 Cr.P.C. relying on the said documents, which are yet to be proved, to discharge the accused certainly indicate clear non application of judicial mind which would vitiate the order of discharge. 20. Therefore, apart from the issue of the permissibility of considering the documents filed by the accused at the time of charge consideration under Section 227 Cr.P.C. relying on the said documents, which are yet to be proved, to discharge the accused certainly indicate clear non application of judicial mind which would vitiate the order of discharge. 20. Apart from the aforesaid illegality in allowing the respondent to file documents and to consider the same for the purpose of discharging the respondent, this Court also has noted various other irregularities. The Court below had undertaken an extensive exercise to consider the evidentiary value of the materials relied on by the prosecution to hold that there is no material to link the seized tablets to the accused as quoted earlier. The Court below held that merely because the tablets recovered from the unoccupied house in Seijang Village and those which were purchased by the accused respondent from the manufacturer bore the same batch number cannot by itself fasten the liability on the respondent as this is merely of presumptive value and there is no iota of material to show that the accused or anyone on behalf of the accused had transported the said tablets to the unoccupied house at Seijang Village. 21. Thus, perusal of the impugned judgment, some portion of which have been already quoted above, would clearly indicate that the Special Judge was subjecting the evidence produced both by the prosecution as well as by the respondent to strict scrutiny as regards admissibility as well as the credibility and also the relevancy. The Special Judge had, after critically examining the pros and cons of the evidences on record gave the finding that there is no evidence to link the respondent accused with the seized tablets. Such an approach of the Special Judge of the Court below in weighing the evidence as if it was conducting a trial is not permissible. 22. It was the case of the prosecution that the respondent accused had purchased certain Actinad tablets from the manufacturer under a valid licence. However some of these tablets were sold to unknown persons without ascertaining whether such purchasers had valid licence to purchase these tablets as these tablets were found to contain controlled substance called pseudo ephedrine. 22. It was the case of the prosecution that the respondent accused had purchased certain Actinad tablets from the manufacturer under a valid licence. However some of these tablets were sold to unknown persons without ascertaining whether such purchasers had valid licence to purchase these tablets as these tablets were found to contain controlled substance called pseudo ephedrine. It is the case of the prosecution that not only purchasing controlled item but also selling, supplying and distributing without valid licence, can attract the provisions of Section 9A of the N.D. & P.S. Act. However, there is no reference to presence of pseudo ephedrine in the said tablets by the Judge below while discharging the respondent. The Court below accepted the contention of the respondent that he was merely dealing with schedule H drugs and as such, only provisions of Drugs and Cosmetic Act may be attracted if there be any irregularity in the transaction. The Special Judge, seems to have totally ignored the statement made by the respondent before the investigating authority on 19.7.2011 that he could not produce the relevant documents as is required under the N.D. & P.S. (Rule of Controlled Substance) Order, 1993. 23. There is another aspect which needs to be noted. The accused respondent filed an application praying for discharging him before the Court below on 6.2.2012. Perusal of the aforesaid application shows that the pleas raised in the said application were that (i) there is nothing to indicate that these seized tablets were seized from the possession of the accused, and (ii) there is nothing to indicate that the seized tablets fall within the purview of the N.D. & P.S. Act as the tablets do not contain any pseudo ephedrine but scheduled H Drugs and hence are to be dealt with under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and (iii) mandatory provisions of the N.D. & P.S. Act had not been complied with at the time of seizure. In the said application there is no specific list of documents relied by the accused except to mention that he enclosed licence copy of the accused and others. As mentioned above, the said documents are merely true copies and not original documents. 24. In the said application there is no specific list of documents relied by the accused except to mention that he enclosed licence copy of the accused and others. As mentioned above, the said documents are merely true copies and not original documents. 24. The Court, after considering the materials on record in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), is of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 29.2.2012 passed in Special Trial No. 23 of 2011 by the Special Judge, N.D. & P.S. Act, Manipur is not sustainable in law and is set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Special Judge, Court of N.D. & P.S., Manipur for reconsideration of the charge hearing under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with law as discussed above. The respondent namely, Satughan Kumar, is directed to appear before the Court on 27.1.2015 before the Court of Special Judge, Special Court N.D. & P.S. Manipur, for being proceeded in accordance with law. The cancellation and discharge of bail bond and connected bonds as ordered by the impugned order is also set aside.