Discharge stage in warrant cases requires only a prima facie test; revisional court may correct impermissible evidence weighing.

At the discharge stage in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the court must ask only whether the evidence, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction; it must not conduct a mini trial or weigh the material on a final merits standard. Revisional interference is justified where the subordinate court exceeds that limited inquiry by ignoring a prima facie case or impermissibly reappraising evidence. On the record, seizure material, witness support, and surrounding circumstances disclosed a prima facie case, so the discharge order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter directed to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order discharging the accused under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was sustainable, and whether the materials on record disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial.

Analysis: The revisional court's jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the impugned order and the regularity of the proceedings; it cannot reappreciate evidence as in a full trial. In a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the test at the stage of Section 245 is whether the evidence, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction. The Court held that this stage does not permit weighing the evidence on golden scales or conducting a mini trial. On the record, the seizure of gold from the accused, the supporting witness material, and the surrounding circumstances disclosed a prima facie case. The Trial Court erred in treating disputed matters requiring a deeper evidentiary inquiry as grounds for discharge.

Conclusion: The discharge order was unsustainable and was set aside. A prima facie case was held to exist, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the court must only determine whether the evidence, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction, and the revisional court may interfere where the subordinate court has impermissibly weighed the evidence or ignored a prima facie case.

---