Can't Enter Into Marshalling & Appreciation Of Evidence In Discharge Application U/S 239 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Reiterates
The Allahabad High Court, sitting in Lucknow, has reiterated that while dealing with an application for discharge under Section, the Court is required to only see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Detailed inquiry is not required at this stage and the accused can be discharged when the charge is groundless."At the stage of charge the court is not required to...
The Allahabad High Court, sitting in Lucknow, has reiterated that while dealing with an application for discharge under Section, the Court is required to only see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Detailed inquiry is not required at this stage and the accused can be discharged when the charge is groundless.
"At the stage of charge the court is not required to consider pros and cons of the case and to hold an enquiry to find out truth. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. What is required from the court is to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case for framing a charge against the accused has been made out," Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta observed.
The Bench further added that the court has to consider broad probabilities of the case, total effect of the evidence and the documents produced including basic infirmities, if any.
"If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, but the court should not weigh the evidence as if it were holding trial. Accused can be discharged only when the charge is groundless...Even in a case of grave or strong suspicion charge can be framed."
The instant case pertained to fraudulent mutation of names and fake caste in the property record. The petitioners were booked as co-accused and they alleged that the main author of the crime is co-accused Naib Tehsildar Dhruv Nath who made entry in the revenue record without calling the report from Lekhpal of concerned village. It was further argued by the petitioners that they have not given any application or evidence before the Tehsildar for mutating their names under the proceedings of Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act.
The petitioners were booked and chargesheeted for offences under Sections 167 (Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury), 218 (Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture), 466 (Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 420 (Cheating) and 120-B (Criminal conspiracy) IPC.
The petitioners filed a discharge application which was rejected by the CJM. A revision application was also rejected. Hence, this application was preferred by the applicant/ petitioners seeking to set aside the rejection of discharge application and rejection of revision petition by the CJM.
The counsel for the Petitioners stated that the decision of the trial court as well as the revisional court was without application of judicious mind. The counsel further pleaded that no such material evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners and hence, no offence is made out against them.
Findings
The High Court noted down that, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, the accused can be discharged.
However, it added that the jurisdiction of Court while exercising power under section 227 (Discharge) CrPC is limited.
Reliance was placed on Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) SCC 135, where it was held that in exercising jurisdiction under section 227 Cr.P.C., the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducing a trial.
Similarly, in Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, JT 2010(10) SC 413, it was held that at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
Accordingly, the High Court observed that while considering an application for discharge, it is only required to sift and weigh the materials in order to determine whether or not a prima facie case for framing a charge against the accused has been made out.
"The court has to consider broad probabilities of the case, total effect of the evidence and the documents produced including basic infirmities, if any. If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, but the court should not weigh the evidence as if it were holding trial. Accused can be discharged only when the charge is groundless."
Thus, it held that, as the matter does not appear to be a case that is to be closed at the stage of charge, the court directed the trial court to take endevour to expedite the instant case expeditiously as the present matter is pending for a long time before the trial court.
Case Title: Chavi Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
Citation: