GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR DISCHARGE ;- 1. The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges Under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
2. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
3. The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
4. If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
5. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
6. At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
7. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.. LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN REGARD TO AN APPLICATION SEEKING DISCHARGE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 957 OF 2017
M.E. SHIVALINGAMURTHY ... APPELLANT(S)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
BENGALURU Supreme Court in this case reiterated the following important principles :-
i. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. ii. The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. iii. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the Police or the documents produced before the Court.
iv. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”. v. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
vi. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
vii. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true. viii. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 of the Cr.PC.
The expression, “the record of the case”, used in Section 227 of the Cr.PC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the Police.
In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and Others [(1997) 4 SCC 393] it was held that at Sections 227 and 228 stage the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (purpose of this limited examination is to find "whether a prima facie case is made out ?"on the basis of materials produced by the prosecution. Sifting of evidence is not to be construed as finding evidence sufficient for the purpose of conviction or hold a mini trial to determine credibility or reliability of evidence.) In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 39 ] it was observed by the Supreme Court that at the time of framing a charge the trial court can consider only the material placed before it by the investigating agency, there being no requirement in law for the court to grant at that stage either an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence in defence or consider such evidence the defence may produce at that stage. ( Superintendent and Remembrancer of legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others [ (1979) 4 SCC 274 ] reiterated the same view)
Can accused rely on material collected by prosecution in his favour and compel its production at the stage of discharge ? The general view is NO. State of Orissa versus Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 Any document or other thing envisaged under section 91 provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is “necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code”. The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it, whether police or accused. If under Section 227, what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by court and under a written order an officer in charge of a police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.” (In this judgment Supreme court did clarify that if accused has a sterling evidence in his favour , he may resort to section 482 read with article 226 of the Constitution to give relief and prevent abuse of the process of court but for that purpose parameters of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal ought to be kept in mind. But section 91 cannot be invoked even for sterling evidence that was the ratio of this decision) An exception to above general rule is carved out in :- Supreme Court of India
Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin vs Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy Also Known ... on 7 December, 2017
Thus, it is clear that while ordinarily the Court has to proceed on the basis of material produced with the charge sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if such document is not a part of the charge sheet. It does not mean that the defence has a right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. de hors the satisfaction of the court, at the stage of charge. but how will an accused know about these different documents? answer : - right to full and fair investigation and disclosure is a constitutional requirement under article 21. the plea to be taken at the stage of S.207 (provision for documents to be supplied to the accused prior to hearing on charge) itself by seeking inspection of the court and police files both and then resorting to the exception of carved out above .
In the pronouncement in Siddharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma V. State (NCT of Delhi) , the role of a public prosecutor and his duties of disclosure have received a wide and in-depth consideration of SupremeCourt. Court has held that though the primary duty of a Public Prosecutor is to ensure that an accused is punished, his duties extend to ensuring fairness in the proceedings and also to ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court for a just determination of the truth so that due justice prevails. The fairness of the investigative process so as to maintain the citizens’ rights under Articles 19 and 21 and also the active role of the court in a criminal trial have been exhaustively dealt with by Supreme Court. Finally, it was held that it is the responsibility of the investigating agency as well as that of the courts to ensure that every investigation is fair and does not erode the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. It was also held that one of the established facets of a just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of an accused to ask for all such documents that he may be entitled to under the scheme contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said scheme was duly considered by Supreme Court in different paragraphs of the report. The views expressed would certainly be useful for reiteration in the context of the facts of the present case:-
“ Under Section 170, the documents during investigation are required to be forwarded to the Magistrate, while in terms of Section 173(5) all documents or relevant extracts and the statement recorded under Section 161 have to be forwarded to the Magistrate. The investigating officer is entitled to collect all the material, which in his wisdom is required for proving the guilt of the offender. He can record statement in terms of Section 161 and his power to investigate the matter is a very wide one, which is regulated by the provisions of the Code. The statement recorded under Section 161 is not evidence per se under Section 162 of the Code. The right of the accused to receive the documents/statements submitted before the court is absolute and it must be adhered to by the prosecution and the court must ensure supply of documents/statements to the accused in accordance with law. Under the proviso to Section 162(1) the accused has a statutory right of confronting the witnesses with the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code thus indivisible.
Further, Section 91 empowers the court to summon production of any document or thing which the court considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or another proceeding under the provisions of the Code. Where Section 91 read with Section 243 says that if the accused is called upon to enter his defence and produce his evidence there he has also been given the right to apply to the court for issuance of process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination, cross- examination or the production of any document or other thing for which the court has to pass a reasoned order.
The liberty of an accused cannot be interfered with except under due process of law. The expression “due process of law” shall deem to include fairness in trial. The court (sic Code) gives a right to the accused to receive all documents and statements as well as to move an application for production of any record or witness in support of his case. This constitutional mandate and statutory rights given to the accused place an implied obligation upon the prosecution (prosecution and the Prosecutor) to make fair disclosure. The concept of fair disclosure would take in its ambit furnishing of a document which the prosecution relies upon whether filed in court or not. That document should essentially be furnished to the accused and even in the cases where during investigation a document is bona fide obtained by the investigating agency and in the opinion of the Prosecutor is relevant and would help in arriving at the truth, that document should also be disclosed to the accused.
The role and obligation of the Prosecutor particularly in relation to disclosure cannot be equated under our law to that prevalent under the English system as aforereferred to. But at the same time, the demand for a fair trial cannot be ignored. It may be of different consequences where a document which has been obtained suspiciously, fraudulently or by causing undue advantage to the accused during investigation such document could be denied in the discretion of the Prosecutor to the accused whether the prosecution relies or not upon such documents, however in other cases the obligation to disclose would be more certain. As already noticed the provisions of Section 207 have a material bearing on this subject and make an interesting reading. This provision not only require or mandate that the court without delay and free of cost should furnish to the accused copies of the police report, first information report, statements, confessional statements of the persons recorded under Section 161 whom the prosecution wishes to examine as witnesses, of course, excluding any part of a statement or document as contemplated under Section 173(6) of the Code, any other document or relevant extract thereof which has been submitted to the Magistrate by the police under sub-section (5) of Section 173. In contradistinction to the provisions of Section 173, where the legislature has used the expression “documents on which the prosecution relies” are not used under Section 207 of the Code. Therefore, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code will have to be given liberal and relevant meaning so as to achieve its object. Not only this, the documents submitted to the Magistrate along with the report under Section 173(5) would deem to include the documents which have to be sent to the Magistrate during the course of investigation as per the requirement of Section 170(2) of the Code.
The right of the accused with regard to disclosure of documents is a limited right but is codified and is the very foundation of a fair investigation and trial. On such matters, the accused cannot claim an indefeasible legal right to claim every document of the police file or even the portions which are permitted to be excluded from the documents annexed to the report under Section 173(2) as per orders of the court. But certain rights of the accused flow both from the codified law as well as from equitable concepts of the constitutional jurisdiction, as substantial variation to such procedure would frustrate the very basis of a fair trial. To claim documents within the purview of scope of Sections 207, 243 read with the provisions of Section 173 in its entirety and power of the court under Section 91 of the Code to summon documents signifies and provides precepts which will govern the right of the accused to claim copies of the statement and documents which the prosecution has collected during investigation and upon which they rely.
It will be difficult for the Court to say that the accused has no right to claim copies of the documents or request the Court for production of a document which is part of the general diary subject to satisfying the basic ingredients of law stated therein. A document which has been obtained bona fide and has bearing on the case of the prosecution and in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, the same should be disclosed to the accused in the interest of justice and fair investigation and trial should be furnished to the accused. Then that document should be disclosed to the accused giving him chance of fair defence, particularly when non-production or disclosure of such a document would affect administration of criminal justice and the defence of the accused prejudicially.” (vide Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1)
Supreme Court of India
V.K. Sasikala vs State Rep. By Superintendent Of ... on 27 September, 2012 The absence of any claim on the part of the accused to demand disclosure of the said documents at any earlier point of time cannot have the effect of foreclosing such a right of the accused. Absence of such a claim, till the time when raised, can be understood and explained in several reasonable and acceptable ways. Suffice it would be to say that individual notion of prejudice, difficulty or handicap in putting forward a defence would vary from person to person and there can be no uniform yardstick to measure such perceptions. If the appellant has perceived certain difficulties in answering or explaining some part of the evidence brought by the prosecution on the basis of specific documents and seeks to ascertain if the allegedly incriminating documents can be better explained by reference to some other documents which are in the court’s custody, an opportunity must be given to the accused to satisfy herself in this regard. It is not for the prosecution or for the Court to comprehend the prejudice that is likely to be caused to the accused. The perception of prejudice is for the accused to develop and if the same is founded on a reasonable basis it is the duty of the Court as well as the prosecution to ensure that the accused should not be made to labour under any such perception and the same must be put to rest at the earliest. Such a view, according to us, is an inalienable attribute of the process of a fair trial that Article 21 guarantees to every accused.
The question arising would no longer be one of compliance or non-compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and would travel beyond the confines of the strict language of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and touch upon the larger doctrine of a free and fair trial that has been painstakingly built up by the courts on a purposive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not the stage of making of the request; the efflux of time that has occurred or the prior conduct of the accused that is material. What is of significance is if in a given situation the accused comes to the court contending that some papers forwarded to the Court by the investigating agency have not been exhibited by the prosecution as the same favours the accused the court must concede a right to in the accused to have an access to the said documents, if so claimed. This, according to Supreme Court, is the core issue in the case which it answered in affirmative. In this regard, Supreme Court specifically in said that , " we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by the High Court that the accused must be made to await the conclusion of the trial to test the plea of prejudice that he may have raised. Such a plea must be answered at the earliest and certainly before the conclusion of the trial, even though it may be raised by the accused belately." This is how the scales of justice in our Criminal Jurisprudence have to be balanced. (in other words , one does not have to wait till conclusion of the trial to raise the plea of prejudice , it can arise at any stage where accused develops such perception) GRANT OF INVALID SANCTION UNDER 197 DIFFERENT FROM OMISSION OF SANCTION , THEY ARE TO BE RAISED AT TRIAL , NOT AT THE STAGE OF DISCHARGE - 2
Dinesh Kumar vs. Chairman, Airport Authority of India, (2012) 1 SCC 532 While drawing a distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction, Supreme Court in Parkash Singh Badal case expressed in no uncertain terms that the absence of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. However, where sanction order exists, but its legality and validity is put in question, such issue has to be raised in the course of trial. Of course, in Parkash Singh Badal case Court referred to invalidity of sanction on account of non- application of mind. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like non-availability of material before the sanctioning authority or bias of the sanctioning authority or the order of sanction having been passed by an authority not authorised or competent to grant such sanction. The above grounds are only illustrative and not exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind - a category carved out by Court in Parkash Singh Badal5, the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial. ( THIS VIEW WAS AGAIN REITERATED IN Supreme Court of India
Central Bureau Of Investigation ... vs Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar ... on 25 September, 2019)
Supreme Court of India
Deepu @ Deepak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 December, 2018
Supreme Court recently upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoning some accused who were discharged by it earlier, ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
Seven persons, including Deepu @ Deepak, were accused of the offence of murder and robbery. The trial court discharged Deepu and four others, ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them. Though it recalled the order of discharge, the Supreme Court had ultimately set aside the order on the ground that there is no provision to review or recall the order.
During the trial of the other two accused, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court, allowed the application, being satisfied about the existence of ample material against the appellant to proceed against him on the basis of the supplementary charge sheet, Test Identification Parade, Forensic Science Laboratory report and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., as well as depositions of witnesses, issued summons to the appellant herein and thereafter proceeded to frame charges against him. Since, at an earlier point of time the supplementary chargesheet was ignored by the Trial Court while discharging the appellant, there is no bar to proceed against him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on the supplementary charge-sheet, that too when sufficient material is brought on record against him during the course of trial.” Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978 (locus classicus)
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 366, 1979 SCR (2) 229
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out: (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while .
giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. THERE IS NO PROVISION OF DISCHAGE IN A SUMMON CASE Court can not discharge accused in summons case, so what procedure can be resorted to if a procedure akin to discharge is required at the summons stage? Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: (2004) 13 SCC 324 The case involving a summons case is covered by Chapter XX of the Code which does not contemplates a stage of discharge like Section 239 which provides for a discharge in a warrant case. Therefore, in Supreme Court's opinion the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Code the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which is to take the trial to its logical conclusion.
The only remedy available to an aggrieved accused to challenge an order in an interlocutory stage is the extraordinary remedy under Section 482 of the Code and not by way of an application to recall the summons or to seek discharge which is not contemplated in the trial of a summons case. Independent Prosecution By De Facto Complainant Not Permissible In Sessions Case: Supreme Court of India
Shiv Kumar vs Hukam Chand And Anr on 30 August, 1999 (after referring section 301 and 302 and 225 of Cr.PC)
From the scheme of the Code the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a sessions court cannot be conducted by any one other than the Public Prosecutor. The legislature reminds the State that the policy must strictly conform to fairness in the trial of an accused in a sessions court. A Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts involved in the case. The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and make it available to the accused. Even if the defence counsel overlooked it, Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the court if it comes to his knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed free hand to conduct prosecution would focus on bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case to be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly to the instructions given by the Public Prosecutor.
It is not merely an overall supervision which the Public Prosecutor is expected to perform in such cases when a privately engaged counsel is permitted to act on his behalf. The role which a private counsel in such a situation can play is, perhaps, comparable with that of a junior advocate conducting the case of his senior in a court. The private counsel is to act on behalf of the Public Prosecutor albeit the fact he is engaged in the case by a private party. If the role of the Public Prosecutor is allowed to shrink to a mere supervisory role the trial would become a combat between the private party and the accused which would render the legislative mandate in Section 225 of the Code a dead letter. (Dhariwal Industries Ltd. Vs. Kishore Wadhwani & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 859 of 2016 @ S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5717 of 2012] reiterated this principle ) Is the public prosecutor bound to summon those witnesses who may not support its case? Or is he bound to summon all persons examined under 161 of the Cr.PC?
Supreme Court of India
Hukam Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 September, 2000 In trials before a Court of Sessions the prosecution shall be conduced by a Public Prosecutor. Section 226 of the Code enjoins on him to open up his case by describing the charge brought against the accused. He has to state what evidence he proposes to adduce for proving the guilt of the accused. If he knew at that stage itself that certain persons cited by the investigating agency as witnesses might not support the prosecution case he is at liberty to state before the court that fact. Alternatively, he can wait further and obtain direct information about the version which any particular witness might speak in court. If that version is not in support of the prosecution case it would be unreasonable to insist on the Public Prosecutor to examine those persons as witnesses for prosecution.
When the case reaches the stage envisaged in Section 231 of the Code the Sessions Judge is obliged to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. It is clear from the said Section that the Public Prosecutor is expected to produce evidence in support of the prosecution and not in derogation of the prosecution case. At the said stage the Public Prosecutor would be in a position to take a decision as to which among the persons cited are to be examined. If there are too many witnesses on the same point the Public Prosecutor is at liberty to choose two or some among them alone so that the time of the court can be saved from repetitious depositions on the same factual aspects. That principle applies when there are too many witnesses cited if they all had sustained injuries at the occurrence. The Public Prosecutor in such cases is not obliged to examine all the injured witnesses. If he is satisfied by examining any two or three of them, it is open to him to inform the court that he does not propose to examine the remaining persons in that category. (It is to be borne in mind , that when court discharges an accused , it has to record reasons. But , no reasons are required for framing the charge . Discharge application cannot be solely rejected on the ground of delay . Discharge cannot be sought after charges have been framed.) Satisfaction for framing of charge :- Supreme Court of India
Suresh Alias Pappu Bhudharmal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2001 held that at the stage ofsections 227and 228th Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.
Examination of the accused and framing of the charge are two distinct stages , if both are done at the same stage its an illegal exercise of power and such practice is deprecated by the Supreme court. Its ought not to be exercised in a mechanical manner . (vide Sajjan Sharma v. state of Bihar Air 2011 SC 632)