Prima facie material at charge stage justified rejection of discharge where witness statements showed active facilitation of transactions.

At the stage of framing charge, the court must examine only whether prima facie material exists, not undertake detailed appreciation of evidence. Statements of material witnesses indicated that the applicant had a substantial role in suggesting investments, facilitating transactions, and connecting the concerned persons with the company and its directors. On that material, the rejection of discharge was upheld and the applicant was not entitled to discharge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to discharge in a revision arising from rejection of the discharge application.

Analysis: The record disclosed statements of material witnesses indicating that the applicant had a substantial role in suggesting investments, facilitating transactions, and connecting the persons concerned with the company and its directors. At the stage of framing charge, the Court was required only to see whether prima facie material existed, not to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. On that standard, the material was sufficient to proceed against the applicant, and the rejection of discharge did not suffer from infirmity.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to discharge.

---