Summary
The Supreme Court restored the refusal to discharge a public servant accused of possessing disproportionate assets. The High Court had prematurely accepted explanations about loans and purchases as proved defence evidence. At the charge stage, the court must assess the prosecution record for a prima facie case, without deciding disputed factual defences through a mini-trial. The prosecution and sanction materials had considered the accused’s submissions.
Issues
- Whether the High Court exceeded discharge-stage and revisional limits by accepting the accused’s explanations about assets and loans.
- Whether the charge-sheet materials warranted continuation of trial.
Provisions considered
- Sections 227 and 228, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The relevant inquiry was whether the prosecution materials disclosed grounds to proceed, not whether disputed defence explanations would ultimately secure acquittal. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17)
- Sections 397 and 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Revisional jurisdiction did not permit appellate reassessment of disputed defence evidence to overturn the reasoned refusal of discharge. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 18)
Held
- At discharge, the court applies its mind to the prosecution record to identify a prima facie case; it must not conduct a mini-trial or determine whether the evidence will ultimately support conviction. The accused may point to exculpatory material within the charge-sheet record, but has no general right to introduce an independent defence record at this stage. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Revisional intervention addresses patent legal or jurisdictional error, perversity or comparable defects. It is not an opportunity to reassess evidence as an appellate court or adjudicate disputed factual explanations prematurely. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- The investigation and sanction process had considered the accused’s written submissions and documents. The alleged loans and purchase explanations raised factual questions for trial; accepting their truth to grant discharge was impermissible. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; High Court discharge order set aside and trial court’s refusal of discharge restored. Trial to proceed expeditiously, preferably concluding within one year.