Prima facie case at discharge stage: defence documents cannot override prosecution materials for framing of charge.

At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the court must confine itself to the prosecution record to see whether it discloses a prima facie case or strong suspicion. Defence material, including external documents produced by the accused, cannot be used to displace the prosecution case or require a meticulous evaluation of evidence at that stage. Applying that standard, the court found no basis to grant discharge, declined to interfere with the order refusing discharge, and directed the prosecution to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petitioner was entitled to discharge, and whether the assessment order and other external materials could be relied upon at the stage of considering discharge or framing of charge.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the court is concerned only with whether the prosecution record discloses a prima facie case. It is not required to assess the probative value of defence material or undertake a meticulous examination of evidence. External documents produced by the accused do not displace the prosecution case at this stage. The existence of a strong suspicion founded on the prosecution materials is sufficient to justify framing of charge, and the earlier dismissal of an identical relief also weighed against entertaining the same prayer again.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge. The court declined to interfere with the order refusing discharge and upheld the continuation of the prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the prosecution was directed to proceed with expedition.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge or charge, the court must confine itself to the prosecution record and documents, and if those materials disclose a prima facie case or strong suspicion, external defence material cannot be used to seek discharge.

---