Discharge at prima facie stage cannot test defence or sanction competence; prosecution may continue on sufficient materials.

At the discharge stage under Section 245 CrPC, the court examines only whether the complaint and final report disclose prima facie material to proceed, and it does not weigh the defence version. The objection that the sanctioning authority lacked competence was held to be a matter for trial on evidence, not for decision at discharge. As charges had already been framed and trial had begun, interference with the refusal to discharge was not warranted. The materials under Section 173 CrPC were found sufficient to justify continuation of the prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitions for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were rightly dismissed in view of the materials disclosing a prima facie case, and whether the objection regarding competency of the sanctioning authority could be examined at the discharge stage.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the Court is concerned only with whether the complaints and final reports disclose prima facie material to proceed against the accused. The defence set up by the accused is not to be weighed at that stage. The objection regarding competency of the authority granting sanction was held to be a matter for trial, to be decided on evidence. Since charges had already been framed and trial had commenced, interference with the orders refusing discharge was not warranted. The materials under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were sufficient to justify continuation of the prosecution.

Conclusion: The discharge petitions were not maintainable for interference, and the refusal to discharge the accused was upheld.

---