Prima facie standard at discharge applies in disproportionate-assets cases; mini trial impermissible and delay may be condoned.

Delay in filing and refiling the special leave petitions was condoned because the delay was explained by a change in the Government's decision after fresh legal opinion, and the connected matters arose from the same impugned order. At the discharge stage under Section 239 CrPC, the court must confine itself to whether the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case and cannot conduct a mini trial or weigh evidence. On that standard, the accused could not be discharged in the disproportionate-assets prosecution merely because some properties stood in the names of persons with independent tax assessments or because the investigation was alleged to be defective. The discharge orders were set aside and the trial was directed to proceed from charge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inordinate delay in filing and refiling the special leave petitions deserved condonation in the circumstances of the case. (ii) Whether, at the stage of discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused could be discharged on the ground that the materials did not justify framing of charge in a disproportionate-assets prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the inordinate delay in filing and refiling the special leave petitions deserved condonation in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the change in governmental decision after obtaining a fresh legal opinion, and the connected appeals involved the same order that was the foundation of the present challenge. In those circumstances, the Court considered it inappropriate to reject the matters on limitation alone.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether, at the stage of discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused could be discharged on the ground that the materials did not justify framing of charge in a disproportionate-assets prosecution.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the court must proceed on the prosecution materials as they stand and determine whether they disclose a prima facie case or a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed. It cannot conduct a roving enquiry or a mini trial, nor can it weigh the evidence as if deciding an acquittal. The fact that some properties stood in the names of persons who were assessed to income tax, or that investigation was alleged to be defective, was not by itself sufficient to negate the prosecution case at the threshold.

Conclusion: The discharge was unsustainable and the accused ought not to have been discharged.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the discharge orders were set aside, and the trial was directed to proceed from the stage of charge in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge, the court must only decide whether the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case and cannot assess their probative value or conduct a mini trial; allegations of disproportionate assets may proceed to charge even where the assets stand in the names of relatives or other persons with independent tax assessments.

---