Discharge stage limits defence reliance: prosecution material is tested at face value, and revisional interference is confined to patent illegality.

At the discharge or charge stage, the court must assess only whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion; the accused cannot rely on disputed defence material or explanations to secure discharge, because a mini trial and evaluation of defence evidence are impermissible. Revisional interference is confined to patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, or material disregard of law, and the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or treat disputed facts as proved. Applied to a disproportionate assets prosecution, the trial court's refusal to discharge was correct and the High Court's interference was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, at the stage of discharge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused can rely on defence material and explanations to defeat the prosecution case; (ii) Whether the High Court, in revision, was justified in setting aside the trial court's order refusing discharge in a disproportionate assets prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether, at the stage of discharge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused can rely on defence material and explanations to defeat the prosecution case.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the court is required to proceed on the basis that the prosecution material is true and to see whether the facts emerging from that material disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence. The accused has no right to insist upon a mini trial or to compel the court to evaluate the probative value of defence evidence. The hearing at that stage is confined to the prosecution record, and the defence version, including explanations for loans, purchases, or sources of income, is ordinarily a matter for trial.

Conclusion: The accused cannot be discharged on the basis of disputed defence material or explanations at the charge stage.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court, in revision, was justified in setting aside the trial court's order refusing discharge in a disproportionate assets prosecution.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, or material disregard of law. The High Court could not reappreciate the evidence, weigh the defence version, or treat disputed facts as proved for the purpose of discharge. Where the charge-sheet material created a reasonable suspicion and disclosed the ingredients of the offence, interference at that stage was unwarranted. The trial court had correctly found sufficient ground to proceed, and the High Court exceeded the permissible bounds of revision by substituting its own assessment of the defence case.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the trial court's refusal to discharge the accused.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was held fit to proceed to trial, and the order discharging the accused was restored to the extent that the trial court's refusal to discharge stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: At the discharge or charge stage, the court must assess only whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, creates a prima facie case or grave suspicion, without embarking on a mini trial or evaluating the accused's defence evidence; revisional interference is permissible only for patent illegality or perversity.

---