TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to quash the charge and discharge the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by assessing the transcript and other material on merits at the stage of discharge or framing of charge.
Analysis: At the stage of considering discharge or framing charge, the court is required to see whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The court is not to weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial, assess the likelihood of conviction, or undertake a mini trial. The trial court had found a prima facie case on the basis of the material including the transcript, while the High Court entered into the merits and reassessed the evidence in a manner impermissible at that stage.
Conclusion: The High Court's approach was legally unsustainable. The order quashing the charge and discharging the accused was set aside, and the charge framed by the trial court was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the court must confine itself to whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case and must not conduct a mini trial or evaluate the material to determine whether the accused is likely to be convicted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
