Summary
The Court remanded a criminal revision challenging refusal of discharge because the High Court wrongly confined review to patent jurisdictional errors and failed to examine the merits. Orders framing charge or refusing discharge are not purely interlocutory and do not attract Section 397(2)’s bar. Exceptional intervention remains available to prevent abuse, and discharge requires judicial scrutiny rather than mechanical acceptance of the prosecution material.
Issues
- Whether refusal of discharge was immune from revisional scrutiny except for patent jurisdictional error.
- What scrutiny the discharge court and revisional court were required to undertake.
Provisions considered
- Sections 397 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Held that charge and refusal-of-discharge orders are intermediate orders outside the interlocutory bar, preserving cautious revision and inherent intervention against abuse of process. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Recognized discharge as a valuable right requiring consideration of material and basic infirmities rather than acting as a mere conduit for prosecution allegations. (¶¶ 7, 16, 18)
Held
- The High Court under-appreciated the precedent it relied on, including its special anti-corruption context and acknowledgment of the earlier rule permitting exceptional interference. Review was not restricted to patent jurisdictional errors alone. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Orders framing charge or refusing discharge are neither purely interlocutory nor final. Revisional and inherent powers must be exercised carefully and exceptionally, but a complete hands-off approach may permit serious prejudice and abuse. (¶ 15)
- At discharge, the court must sift the material for sufficient grounds to try the accused, considering broad probabilities, its total effect and basic infirmities. This requires judicial application of mind; further investigation may be directed in an appropriate case. (¶ 16)
- Because the High Court had not assessed the merits, fairness of investigation or improvements in witness accounts, the revision required fresh consideration. The Court did not itself discharge the accused or finally determine the allegations. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
High Court order set aside; criminal revision remanded for fresh consideration according to law. Appeal and pending applications disposed of.