Framing of charge requires only a prima facie case; courts must not weigh evidence or assess probable conviction.

At the stage of framing charge, the court must only assess whether the material on record creates a prima facie case or a strong suspicion that the accused may have committed the offence; it cannot weigh the probative value of the prosecution material or decide whether conviction is certain. Applying that test to charges under the Penal Code, the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the order framing charge because the threshold for trial was satisfied. The High Court's order was unsustainable and was set aside, leaving the charges to stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order framing charges for offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: At the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to see whether the material on record raises a ground for presuming that the accused may have committed the offence. The probative value of the prosecution material cannot be weighed at that stage, and the court is not called upon to decide whether conviction is certain. Sections 227, 228, 239, 240 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 show that the test is whether a prima facie case exists and whether the material reasonably connects the accused with the offence. If the materials create a strong suspicion of the commission of the offence, framing of charge is justified.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered with the order framing charge. The order of the High Court was unsustainable and was set aside, and the charges were allowed to stand.

---