Summary
The Court upheld reversal of discharge of a former Director of Mines and Geology accused in a mining conspiracy. Prosecution material contradicted his file note that legal advice had been obtained before directing mineral dispatch permits. His claimed bona fide reliance on departmental practice and an actual oral consultation were matters of defence, unavailable for determining discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
Issues
- What material and scrutiny are permissible on a Section 227 discharge application.
- Whether the prosecution material warranted continuation of the case against the official.
Held
- The court may sift prosecution material for sufficient grounds and grave suspicion, considering broad probabilities and basic infirmities, but must not conduct a roving assessment of probative value. If the prosecution material taken as true cannot disclose the offence, discharge is warranted. (¶¶ 14, 25)
- The accused cannot introduce defence material at the discharge stage. An explanation of grave suspicion must arise from the prosecution’s own material, although broad probabilities may be invoked. (¶¶ 15, 26, 27, 28)
- Subordinates had recommended legal opinion, while the Deputy Director (Legal) denied being consulted despite the appellant’s contrary file note. His account of consultation and reliance on past practice raised issues for later examination rather than grounds for discharge. (¶¶ 17, 19, 24, 29)
- The precedent concerning the 1949 mining rule and decisions under the Stamp Act did not resolve the position under the materially different rule applicable to the alleged 2009 transaction. The Court’s observations were confined to discharge and were not to constrain trial adjudication. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The High Court’s reversal of discharge remained in force. Observations were expressly limited to the Section 227 application and were not to bind the trial court’s determination.