Summary
The High Court’s discharge order in a corruption prosecution was set aside because it described the case as unsupported by evidence without analysing the material identified by the trial court. The revision was restored for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court expressed no view on whether discharge should ultimately be granted and required expeditious disposal without obstructing trial progress.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could discharge the accused as a case of no evidence without addressing the incriminating material identified by the trial court.
Held
- The trial court had referred to documentary entries, conversations and witness material indicating alleged participation. Before treating the case as one of no evidence, the High Court needed to examine those factual aspects and explain whether the trial court’s account lacked support in the record. (¶¶ 5, 8)
- The unexplained conclusion of no evidence, reached without analysing the trial court’s factual assessment, was unacceptable and could not survive judicial scrutiny. (¶ 7–9)
- The revision was restored for reconsideration on its own merits. No opinion was expressed either way on discharge; all aspects remained open. The High Court was to decide expeditiously, with the reminder that trial progress could not be interdicted. (¶ 10–12)
Result
Appeal disposed of; High Court judgment set aside and criminal revision restored for fresh, expeditious consideration on merits. Discharge merits expressly left open; pending applications disposed of.