- The Allahabad HC has reiterated, in Chavi Lal and ors. vs. State of UP and anr that when an application for discharge has been moved under section 239 of CrPC, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. Detailed enquiry is not required at this stage and the accused can be discharged if the charge against him appears to be groundless. .
- Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed “At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to go into the pros and cons of the case and hold an inquiry to find out the truth. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not the domain of the Court at that point of time. What is required is that the Court should sift and weigh the material for the purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused for the purpose of framing a charge”.
- In the instant case, the petitioners were booked under section 167, 218, 466, 467, 468,471, 420 and 120B of IPC. The petitioners were booked as co-accused and they alleged that the main culprit was Naib Tehsildar Dhruv Nath who made an entry in the revenue records without calling for the report of the Lekhpal of the concerned village.
- The petitioners filed a discharge application which was rejected by the CJM. A revision application was also rejected. Hence, the present application was moved by the applicant/petitioners seeking to set aside the rejection of the discharge application and revision application by the CJM.
- The Counsel for the applicant argued that the decision of the trial Court was without the application of judicial mind and that no incriminating material was found by the Investigating Officer and no offence was hence made out.
- The HC observed that the power under section 239 of CrPC is very limited. The Court observed that the statute itself states that upon perusal of the report that is forwarded under section 173 CrPC and examining the accused and the prosecution and giving them the opportunity to present their case, if the Court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then she shall stand discharged.
- The Court placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble SC in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra (2002)SCC wherein it was held that while exercising the power vested in section 227 (discharge), the Court cannot merely act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the evidence and the document produced before it, however, the Court should not make a thorough inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if the case had gone to trial already. The same was also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010).
- Thus, in light of the aforesaid contentions, the Court was of the opinion that the case did not appear to be one that could be disposed of at the stage of framing of charges itself. The Trial Court was also asked to expedite the trial.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
