Prima facie test for framing charge prevails over trial-level scrutiny where prosecution material shows strong suspicion.

In proceedings instituted otherwise than on a police report, discharge is a preliminary stage and the court must apply the prima facie test, not weigh the prosecution material as if finally determining guilt. A strong suspicion arising from the record may be enough to justify framing charge, and minor contradictions or deficiencies should not be treated as decisive at that stage. On the facts noted, the material including impersonation allegations and supporting documents furnished sufficient basis to proceed, so the discharge order was unsustainable and the charge framed by the Magistrate was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was liable to be discharged or whether the materials disclosed a prima facie case justifying framing of charge.

Analysis: In proceedings instituted otherwise than on a police report, the stage of considering discharge is a preliminary one and the test to be applied is whether a prima facie case is made out. At that stage, the court is not to assess the evidence with the rigour required at trial, and a strong suspicion based on the prosecution material may suffice for framing charge. The revisional court interfered with the magistrate's order by placing undue emphasis on minor contradictions and deficiencies, whereas the prosecution evidence, including the impersonation and supporting documents, furnished sufficient material to proceed.

Conclusion: The discharge order was unsustainable and the charge framed by the Magistrate was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: For framing charge in such proceedings, the court must apply the prima facie test and not weigh the prosecution evidence as if finally deciding guilt or innocence.

---