Discharge in disproportionate assets cases cannot be based on sanction objections or disputed facts that require trial evidence.

In a disproportionate assets prosecution, a discharge cannot rest on the ground that the accused was not given a separate opportunity during investigation to explain the assets when statements were recorded and sanction otherwise existed. A claimed defect in sanction based on non-consideration of the explanation concerns the validity of sanction, not its absence, and is ordinarily for trial. At the discharge stage, the court must examine the charge-sheet material on assets, income, expenditure and alleged disproportion; disputed questions requiring evidence, including abetment allegations, are premature for final determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a discharge in a prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets could be sustained on the ground that the accused were not given a specific opportunity during investigation to explain the assets and that the sanction for prosecution was defective. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in affirming discharge without examining the material in the charge sheet and the applicable standard for interference at the discharge stage.

Issue (i): Whether a discharge in a prosecution for possession of disproportionate assets could be sustained on the ground that the accused were not given a specific opportunity during investigation to explain the assets and that the sanction for prosecution was defective.

Analysis: The material showed that the accused had been summoned and their statements were recorded during investigation. The requirement of investigation did not extend to conducting a mini trial before filing the charge sheet by requiring the investigating agency to accept or reject the explanation at that stage. A contention that the sanction was defective because the explanation was not separately considered went to the validity of sanction and not to its absence. Such an objection, when sanction otherwise existed, was a matter for trial and not a basis for discharge at the threshold.

Conclusion: The discharge could not be sustained on these grounds.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in affirming discharge without examining the material in the charge sheet and the applicable standard for interference at the discharge stage.

Analysis: The charge sheet contained the relevant particulars of assets, income, expenditure and alleged disproportion. Even on the respondents' separate figures, the question whether the charge was ultimately sustainable required appreciation of evidence and could not be finally determined at the discharge stage. The High Court did not properly address the accusation of disproportionate assets or the abetment allegation against the second accused, and instead proceeded on considerations that were premature for that stage. The impugned order therefore lacked the required application of mind to the material relevant for discharge.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in sustaining the discharge.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the High Court and the Special Court were set aside, and the criminal proceedings were restored for decision in accordance with law, with all merits left open.

Ratio Decidendi: In a disproportionate assets prosecution, alleged defects in sanction or explanation cannot ordinarily justify discharge at the threshold when sanction exists and the disputed questions require trial-level evidence.

---