Prima facie charge standard limits quashing; prosecution material justified trial and pre-trial credibility review was impermissible.

Investigation by a CBI officer was not vitiated where the statute allowed authorisation by the competent CBI authority and the record showed such authorisation, so the rank objection failed. The Special Judge had jurisdiction because a State notification appointed the concerned Sessions Judge as Special Judge for cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, so the lack-of-notification challenge failed. At the pre-trial stage, the High Court could not quash proceedings by reappraising the sufficiency and credibility of prosecution material; the court must only see whether a prima facie case exists for trial. The criminal case was therefore directed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether investigation by the CBI officer authorised under the statute was invalid for want of compliance with the rank requirement in the investigation provision; (ii) Whether the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to try the case in the absence of a notification; (iii) Whether the High Court could quash the proceedings at the pre-trial stage on an appraisal of the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution material for framing charge.

Issue (i): Whether investigation by the CBI officer authorised under the statute was invalid for want of compliance with the rank requirement in the investigation provision.

Analysis: The statutory restriction on investigation by officers below the prescribed rank was read in the context of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, and the provision itself made room for investigation by an authorised Inspector in cases investigated by the CBI. The record also showed a specific authorisation issued by the competent CBI authority for the officer to investigate the case. The High Court's contrary view proceeded on a mistaken understanding of the provision and overlooked the statutory exception applicable to the CBI.

Conclusion: The investigation was not vitiated, and the objection failed against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to try the case in the absence of a notification.

Analysis: The Act required offences under it to be tried by Special Judges appointed by notification, and the record contained a State notification specifically appointing the concerned Sessions Judge as Special Judge for cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the relevant area. On that basis, the High Court's assumption that there was no empowering notification was incorrect. In any event, absence of jurisdiction to try by that court would not justify quashing the criminal proceedings; at most it could warrant transfer or appropriate administrative arrangement.

Conclusion: The Special Judge had jurisdiction, and the challenge on this ground failed against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court could quash the proceedings at the pre-trial stage on an appraisal of the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution material for framing charge.

Analysis: At the stage of framing charge, the court is only to see whether the materials disclose a ground for presuming that the accused committed the offence; it is not to evaluate the evidence as if conducting the trial or decide its probative worth. The trial court had already formed a prima facie view on the basis of the prosecution material. The High Court, however, undertook a detailed scrutiny of witnesses and documentary material and substituted its own assessment of credibility, which was beyond the proper scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction. The materials collected by the prosecution were sufficient to proceed with the trial for offences relating to possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income.

Conclusion: The proceedings could not be quashed at that stage, and the appellant succeeded on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the criminal case was directed to proceed to trial in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charge, the court must only determine whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case and must not weigh the evidence or assess witness credibility; quashing criminal proceedings on that basis is impermissible when the materials justify a trial.

---