Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the discharge of two police officers in a corruption prosecution. The High Court had assessed inconsistencies and prospects of conviction as though hearing an appeal after trial. At the discharge stage that approach was impermissible; the prosecution had to be allowed to prove its case, with guilt left undecided.
Issues
- Whether the courts applied the correct standard when discharging the accused under Section 227.
Provisions considered
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court distinguished prima facie scrutiny for discharge from final appellate appreciation of evidence, rejected the discharge applications and directed trial. (¶ 10–20)
Held
- The High Court cited the governing discharge precedent but incorrectly applied it, examining witness inconsistencies and conviction prospects like an appellate court deciding a final verdict. (¶ 11–16)
- The record did not warrant discharge at this stage. The State had to be permitted to lead and test evidence at trial; neither the facts nor evidentiary merits were finally determined by this decision. (¶ 17–18)
- The trial court must decide on the evidence uninfluenced by observations in the High Court or Supreme Court discharge proceedings. (¶ 20–21)
Result
State appeals allowed; impugned order set aside and Section 227 applications dismissed. Special Court/CJM to proceed with trial and conclude it within six months according to law, uninfluenced by the discharge-stage observations.