Summary
The Supreme Court restored a corruption charge against a Patwari after the High Court discharged him by closely evaluating a recorded conversation and the defence explanation. At the charge stage, the inquiry is whether prosecution material, taken at face value, supplies sufficient ground to proceed, not whether conviction is probable. The applicable section 7 also covered an attempt. Guilt and the competing interpretations of the recording remained for trial.
Issues
- Whether revisional scrutiny of a charge permitted detailed evaluation of the conversation and defence case to discharge the accused.
Provisions considered
- Sections 227 and 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Discharge scrutiny permits a limited prima facie assessment, not a trial of the defence or a prediction of conviction. (¶ 9-12)
- Section 7, as applicable to the alleged 2010 offence, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988An attempt was within the offence; the Court restored the charge without deciding guilt. (¶ 11-13)
Held
- At the discharge or charge stage, prosecution material is assessed on its face to determine whether the ingredients and sufficient ground to proceed exist. Limited sifting does not authorise weighing competing probabilities or conducting a miniature trial. (¶¶ 9.1-9.2, 11)
- The High Court exceeded this scope by examining the transcript in detail, accepting the defence perspective and considering whether the accused would likely be convicted. The Special Judge had found a prima facie case on the prosecution material. (¶ 11)
- The applicable section 7 included an attempt. The Court did not adjudicate the recording’s merits or the accused’s defence; these were for the trial court. (¶ 11-12)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court discharge set aside and Special Judge’s section 7 charge restored. Competent court to try the case on its own merits.