Prima facie charge standard bars quashing where record shows a ground to presume the accused committed an offence.

At the stage of framing charge, the court need only see whether the record discloses a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence; it does not assess truth, admissibility, or final evidentiary value. Applying that standard, the High Court noted that the Magistrate had before him investigation evidence and documents relating to the alleged export of heroin concealed as canned goods, and held that these materials constituted a prima facie basis for charge. Objections based on unproved prosecution documents, section 108 Customs statements, and section 78(6) of the Evidence Act were left for trial. The quashing petition under section 482 failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charges framed in the criminal case could be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds that the prosecution documents were not properly proved, the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be relied upon at that stage, and the material on record did not disclose a case for framing of charge.

Analysis: The material placed before the Magistrate consisted of the evidence of the investigating officers and a large body of documents relating to the alleged export of heroin concealed as canned goods. At the stage of considering discharge or framing of charge, the court is not required to decide the truth, veracity, or final evidentiary value of the prosecution material. The test is whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, not whether the offence has been proved. The judgment applies the settled principle that sufficiently probative allegations and a prima facie basis are enough to justify a charge, while questions about admissibility, rebuttal, and the ultimate evidentiary worth of the documents or statements are matters for trial. The special rule of evidence under section 139 of the Customs Act, 1962 was also treated as sufficient to repel the objection based on section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 at the charge stage.

Conclusion: The charges were justified on the material before the Magistrate and the petition for quashing failed.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charge, the court need only find a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, and not proof of guilt; therefore, where the record discloses a prima facie case, the charges cannot be quashed in exercise of section 482.

---