Discharge and charge framing require only a prima facie case, not trial-level proof; erroneous discharge set aside.

At the discharge or charge-framing stage, the court must not weigh evidence as at trial; it must only see whether the materials, taken at face value, disclose grounds for presuming that the accused committed an offence. If the prosecution material, even if unchallenged, cannot make out the offence, discharge is warranted; if it raises a strong suspicion and supports a prima facie case, a charge must be framed. The trial court and High Court applied the wrong trial-level standard, so the discharge orders were held erroneous and the accused was directed to face trial on appropriate charges.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the stage of considering discharge or framing of charge, the materials disclosed a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, or merely a strong suspicion short of a prima facie case.

Analysis: At the stage governed by Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously or decide whether conviction is certain. The materials are to be seen only to determine whether, if accepted at face value, they disclose grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the evidence proposed by the prosecution, even if unchallenged, cannot make out the offence, discharge is justified. But where the materials raise strong suspicion and support a prima facie case, the proper course is to frame a charge. The trial court and the High Court had approached the matter as if the evidence had to satisfy the standard applicable at the end of the trial, which was not correct.

Conclusion: The orders directing discharge were erroneous, and the respondent should face trial on appropriate charges.

---