Chavi Lal & Others Vs State Of UP & Another: One Can’t Enter Into Marshalling And Appreciate Any Proof Related To A Discharge Plea Under Section 239 Of The CrPC

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
05/03/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MR. SRESH KUMAR GUPTA

PARTIES:
APPELLANT: CHAVI LAL & OTHERS
DEFENDANT: STATE OFU.P. AND OTHERS

SUBJECT

The Allahabad High Court in Lucknow has maintained that when considering a petition for discharge under Section, the Court must only consider whether a prima facie case against the defendant has been established.

OVERVIEW

1. The matter in thecase involved the unlawful alteration of identities and the creation of a false caste in the property records.
2. The appellants were charged as co-accused, and they claimed that the principal perpetrator was co-accused Naib Tehsildar Dhruv Nath, who placed an entry in the tax database without obtaining a statement from the involved village's Lekhpal.
3. The appellants also claimed that they had not submitted any request or documentation to the Tehsildar for the purpose of changing their identities under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act.
4. The appellants were arrested and charged with violating Sections 167 (public servant trying to frame an improper report with the intention to cause serious injuries), 218 (public servant trying to frame an improper record with the intention to cause serious injuries), 466 (Court document fraud, public registry fraud, etc. ), 467 (Useful assurance, will forgery, etc. ), 468 (Forgery for the purpose of defrauding), 471 (Using a fake document or audio file as legitimate), 420 (Cheating), and 120-B (Criminal conspiracy) IPC.
5. The appellants submitted a release appeal, but the CJM denied it. A request for reconsideration was likewise denied. As a result, the applicant/petitioners chose this appeal to overturn the CJM's denial of the release appeal and the denial of the revised appeal. The trial court's and the revisional court's decisions, according to the Appellants' lawyer, were made without the application of a discerning mind. The attorney also argued that the Lead Investigator had not gathered any significant information against the appellants, and so no crime had been committed against them.

LEGAL PROVISION

SECTION 239 OF CrPC

ISSUES

Whether one can enter marshaling and appreciation of the evidence in a discharge plea under section 239?

JUDGEMENT

1. The High Court stated that if the Trial judge deemed the charge against the accused to be baseless after evaluating the police statement and the records sent with it under section 173 and made such investigation, if any, of the accused as the Court official sees fit and after giving the proceedings and the accused a chance to be heard, the accused can be discharged.
2. It did emphasize, nevertheless, that the Court's authority is limited when executing power under section 227 (Discharge) CrPC. Dilawar Balu Kuranev. State of Maharashtra, retained that in having authority under section 227 Cr.P.C., the Jury cannot start behaving as a post office or a propaganda outlet for the prosecutors, but considered the broad likelihoods of the case, the total effect of the proof, and the records generated before the court, rather than making a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the issue and weighing the proof.
3. Likewise, in Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, it was retained that the admissible worth of the substance on documentation could not be considered at the time of charging, but that before charging, the Court must pertain its adjudicative brain to the substance on documentation and be pleased that the accused could commit the crime.
4. As a result, the High Court stated that while examining a discharge petition, it is simply necessary to filter and evaluate the data to assess whether proof for charging the defendant has been established. As a result, it decided that, because the case does not seem to be one that should be dismissed at the level of conviction, the trial court made every effort to accelerate the current case, which had been pending before the trial court for a long time.

CONCLUSION

The Allahabad High Court in Lucknow had maintained that when considering a petition for discharge under Section, the Court must only consider whether a prima facie case against the defendant has been established. At this point, a thorough investigation was not needed, and the accused was released if the allegation was unfounded.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement