Discharge under CrPC requires grave suspicion test on prosecution material alone; defence explanations cannot defeat a prima facie case.

At the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC, the court must assess only the prosecution material at face value and not the accused's defence version. If that material creates grave suspicion or a prima facie basis for involvement, discharge is not warranted merely because an alternative explanation is possible. Applying that standard, file notings, the request for legal opinion, the Deputy Director (Legal)'s statement, and the order for mineral dispatch permits together supported the prosecution allegation of improper action under Rule 37, so the challenge to refusal of discharge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the prosecution material did not disclose grave suspicion or a prima facie case.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the court is required to consider only the material produced by the prosecution and not the defence version. If the prosecution material, taken at face value, gives rise to grave suspicion, the accused cannot be discharged merely because an alternative explanation is possible. On the facts, the file notings, the recommendation for legal opinion, the statement of the Deputy Director (Legal), and the order directing issue of mineral dispatch permits in the name of the company together furnished material from which the prosecution case of improper action in the face of Rule 37 could not be brushed aside at the threshold.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to discharge and the challenge to the order refusing discharge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge, the court must test only the prosecution material, and where that material creates grave suspicion of the accused's involvement, the accused cannot be discharged by relying on a defence version or disputed explanation.

---