Discharge at pre-trial stage requires only a prima facie case review, not evaluation of defence material or a mini trial.

At the stage of discharge under Section 239 CrPC, the court must ask only whether the prosecution materials, taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case or are groundless; it cannot conduct a mini trial or assess defence material. In a prosecution under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must show possession of disproportionate assets with reference to known sources of income, and the accused must satisfactorily account for those assets. The Supreme Court held that income-tax returns and explanations about family members' income did not justify discharge before trial. The discharge order was unsustainable, and the matter was directed to proceed to framing of charge and trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in discharging the accused at the stage of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the materials and the explanations furnished by them; and whether the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the defence material and holding the charge to be groundless.

Analysis: A discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted only when the charge is groundless, meaning that the prosecution materials, taken at their face value, do not disclose a prima facie case. At that stage the court cannot conduct a mini trial, assess the probative value of the defence material, or weigh competing versions as if deciding guilt after evidence. In a prosecution under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution must show possession of disproportionate assets with reference to known sources of income, while the accused bears the burden of satisfactorily accounting for the assets. The expression known sources of income refers to sources known to the prosecution, and documents or explanations produced by the accused, including income-tax returns and claimed independent income of family members, do not by themselves justify discharge before trial.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in discharging the accused. The materials disclosed a triable case, and the order of discharge was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the order of discharge was set aside, with the matter directed to proceed to framing of charge and trial in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court must confine itself to whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case or is groundless, and it cannot evaluate defence evidence or conduct a mini trial.

---