JUDGMENT : 1. This case has a chequered history, as against the 5 respondents on completion of investigation by CBI chargesheet was presented before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Shillong for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B, 420, 467, 471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. 2. Learned Trial Court after hearing the prosecution and defense regarding framing or otherwise of charge has vide its detailed order dated 19-12-2011 found prima facie material justifying framing of charge. As against respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 (accused 1, 2 & 3) formal charge was framed, whereas respondents No. 4 & 5 (accused 4 & 5) were dissatisfied with the order, filed an application under Section 227 CrPC before the Trial Court unsuccessfully as the same was rejected vide order dated 21-09-2012. Dissatisfied therewith, CRL.PTN. (SH). No. 11/2013 and CRL. PTN. (SH) No. 12/2013 were filed by the respondents No. 4 & 5 before the High Court of Gauhati, Shillong Bench as it then was, but both the petitions were dismissed vide detailed judgment dated 20-03-2013. Thereafter again, respondents No. 4 & 5 filed two CRL.MISC.APPLN. (SH) No. 17/2013 and CRL.MISC.APPLN. (SH). No. 18/2013 before this Court and vide detailed judgment dated 31-12-2013 what has been concluded is reflected in para 24, same is quoted hereunder: "24. For the foregoing discussions, in the given case, the trial court can look into the material evidence produced by the petitioners accused at the time of framing of charge and the core question no.1 formulated above is answered accordingly. The core question no. 2 formulated above is also answered that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC in the present revision petition and present revision petition is maintainable. Corollary of the answers are that the trial court shall look into the documents mentioned above and also the documents annexed to the revision petition, if not suspicious, at the time of consideration of the charge or at the time of consideration as to whether or not prima facie case against the present petitioners has been made out. The accused petitioners are to place the documents mentioned above and the documents annexed to the present revision petition before the trial court at the time of consideration of the charge." 3. The accused petitioners are to place the documents mentioned above and the documents annexed to the present revision petition before the trial court at the time of consideration of the charge." 3. In short, in terms of said judgment the Trial Court had to look into the documents as mentioned in the order if not suspicious at the time of consideration of the charge to ascertain whether prima facie case against the petitioners (accused 4 & 5) was made out. The accused 4 & 5 were permitted to place documents as were annexed with the revision petition before the Trial Court at the time of consideration of charge. 4. Taking benefit of the situation, respondents No. 2 and 3 had also filed Misc. petitions which were disposed of with an observation that same shall be governed by the said order dated 31-12-2013. 5. Learned Trial Court after hearing both prosecution as well as counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 (accused) regarding framing or otherwise of the charge afresh. In the process, the documents as were produced by respondents No. 4 & 5 and also by respondents No. 2 & 3 appear to have been taken on record by the Trial Court. Finally concluded in the detailed judgment impugned dated 11-12-2014 that the case against the accused is not established, therefore, all the 5 respondents (accused) were discharged. 6. Against the said order of discharge, instant petition has been filed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the order regarding framing of charge was passed same could not be reopened but such an argument cannot be accepted because the judgment of this Court dated 31-12-2013 passed in CRL.MISC.APPLN. (SH) No. 17/2013 and CRL.MISC.APPLN. (SH). No. 18/2013 has not been challenged. 7. It is contended by the learned Sr. counsel that normally on completion of investigation whatever material is collected by the investigating agency is only to be looked into for ascertaining as to whether prima facie case for framing of the charge is made out. Learned Trial Court has erred in entertaining the documents because the documents so produced were not free from suspicion, documents were not of unimpeachable character to be taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court. 8. It is trite that in sessions trial at the stage of framing or otherwise of the charge, both prosecution as well as defense have to be heard. 8. It is trite that in sessions trial at the stage of framing or otherwise of the charge, both prosecution as well as defense have to be heard. The defense can produce whatever material it may have after closure of prosecution evidence and examination of the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.PC. Now it is settled by the Honble Apex Court in the judgment reported in Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley (2011) 3 SCC 351 that the documents in possession of the defense can be produced at the stage case is considered for framing or otherwise of the charge provided the documents are of unimpeachable character and have impact of clinching the issue. 9. Now the question is as to whether the learned Trial Court has appreciated the matter in right perspective i.e., as to whether satisfaction of the learned Trial Court genuineness and unimpeachable character of the documents has been looked into. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents while arguing sought time so as to enable them to collect the documents from the Trial Court records for easy reference. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents are granted two weeks time to prepare the synopsis of the documents, in sequential manner, as have been considered by the Trial Court. 12. List again for hearing after two weeks.