Discharge stage scrutiny is limited; detailed evaluation of evidence is impermissible, and anti-corruption prosecution may proceed against a non-public servant.

At the discharge stage, the court must only assess whether the prosecution materials disclose sufficient ground to proceed and must not conduct a detailed appraisal of evidence as if at trial; the High Court's elaborate scrutiny was therefore impermissible and the discharge could not stand. A non-public servant can also be proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Act where the alleged role attracts the statutory provisions; the objection that prosecution was barred at the threshold was rejected. The discharge order was set aside and the trial was directed to continue on the prosecution case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in discharging the accused by undertaking an elaborate scrutiny of the prosecution materials at the stage of consideration of discharge. (ii) Whether a non-public servant could be prosecuted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in discharging the accused by undertaking an elaborate scrutiny of the prosecution materials at the stage of consideration of discharge.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the court is not to weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial or deciding guilt. The materials placed by the prosecution are only to be examined to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed, and not by a detailed appraisal of credibility or by drawing definitive conclusions on guilt or innocence. The High Court went beyond that limited jurisdiction by scanning and scrutinising the materials as though it were deciding the case on merits.

Conclusion: The discharge order was erroneous and could not be sustained; the finding is against the accused and in favour of the prosecution.

Issue (ii): Whether a non-public servant could be prosecuted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The objection that the private accused could not be prosecuted was rejected in view of the legal position already settled by the Court that liability under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not confined in the manner suggested. On the facts alleged, the contention did not create any bar to prosecution at the threshold stage.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the non-public servant was maintainable; the finding is against the accused and in favour of the prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order discharging the accused was set aside and the trial was directed to proceed on the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: While considering discharge, the court must not conduct a meticulous evaluation of the evidence or decide the case as if on trial, and prosecution under the anti-corruption law is not defeated merely because one accused is not a public servant where the alleged role otherwise attracts the statutory provisions.

---